Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can anyone list 3 big differences between the Stupak and the Hyde amendments?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:33 AM
Original message
Can anyone list 3 big differences between the Stupak and the Hyde amendments?
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 08:09 AM by uponit7771
Just 3, I've been looking all morning and I don't see what the huge differences are in the bills vs what is happening right now in current law.

You can't use federal funds to pay for abortions, I don't see Stupak expanding on this any from what I understand the amendment to be.

TIA
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. 1) It doesn't have to be renewed every year (it's permanent)
2) It adds a new restriction on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market

3) It would force women who want comprehensive reproductive health care coverage to purchase a separate, single-service rider. Such an ‘abortion rider,' whereby abortion care could only be covered by a single-service plan in the exchange, is discriminatory and illogical
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. For 2, what is the restriction? and for 3 wouldn't the Hyde amendment outlaw any federal funds...
...to be used for abortion anyway?

I feel Stupak was redundant at best
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. You clearly don't WANT to see the differences.
Or care... so whatev, dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I'm asking question for answers truthful strait forward answers not spin
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I gave them to you.
If you're too blind to see what's been explained ad nausea, that's on you.

If it was so "redundant", why did the religious right insist it be added? I'll answer that for you... it ADDS restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Your statement was false, the person can buy a rider and the Hyde Amenmend ALREADY outlaws
...federal funds being used for abortions in any way.

If it was so "redundant", why did the religious right insist it be added?

- Because they're stupid but it takes away their argument that this bill will be used to fund abortions and puts the ammendment in the lime light so they'll know

...it ADDS restrictions...

How does it add restrictions to the Hyde amendment!?!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. You only wanted people to list the differences so you could argue them?
This OP is dishonest and full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. How bout answering the questions more than calling names, I got thick skin but I like constructive
...conversations
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Who did I call what name?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #18
53. One last thing. If it's "redundant" and no more restricting than Hyde,
Why did ANY Dems vote against it?

Oh right... because it *IS* adding more restrictions:

"Rep: Diana DeGette: To say Stupak Amendment "is a wolf in sheep's clothing is an understatement." The Health Care reform bill does not spend one federal dollar on abortion. (Page 246, line 11.) Under the amendment, those obtaining insurance under the public option, would not be able to receive an abortion, even if they buy the policy with their own money."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
98. It is discriminatory for women to have to buy extra coverage for their healthcare.
Are men having to buy extra coverage for their penises?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LaydeeBug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. more like you're trying to spin it as if there's no problem with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. No, just tryin to get truthful, stright foward and accurate answers. Right now you cant use federal
...funds for abortion. I don't see how Stupak changes that much...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #25
42. Holy shit, really?
It EXTENDS TO RESTRICT PRIVATE FUNDS as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. LInk and quote....TIA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Ya know what....
Clearly you are the primary authority on women's reproductive health and we should all be mesmerized by the depth and breath of your knowledge in addition to your compassion and on this topic. You continue offer valuable input while always being rational, reasonable and sane. I can only aspire to be as awesome as you someday.

Good day, sir.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. Nikki, please don't take the request as personal I just want to read it for myself. I did not see...
...that Stupak restricts a person from payin for their own abortion if they wanted to just as the Hyde amendment does now
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #47
50. I said good day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LaydeeBug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. We don't need three. That's like saying, "well three fifths of a person is only two fifths off,
what's the prob with that? :shrug:

Just three. Fuck off
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. What poster #1 said, and to clarify even more
a woman with private insurance coverage that she pays for herself, or that her employer pays for, cannot receive abortion coverage if her insurance company participates in the exchange or receives any federal funds at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. This is false, she can by the rider...like 1 said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I also said it's "discriminatory and illogical".
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 07:57 AM by PeaceNikki
Miss that part? Why should women have to buy a "rider" for health care coverage when men don't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. No, I miss the part where federal funds can be used for abortions being made legal...
...you'd have to do it under Hyde anyway.

I feel Stupak amendment was redundant law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
20. See here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
92. Big deal whether it's a rider or not
Men can't get pregnant and never need abortions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
17. Deliberate obtusity....
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 08:05 AM by Ineeda
Again, if the insurance company participates...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. My understanding is ALL insurance companys will HAVE to offer the rider. THey can't opt out of it
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #22
32. Only you are talking about a rider
It should not be necessary to buy additional coverage for a legal medical procedure that applies only to women. Would you be willing to pay extra to cover male health care procedures?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. I agree but it's law today and now that I know about Hyde I'll support those who want to get rid of
...it.

I don't see how Stupak expands and the current law of no federal funds going to pay for abortions though...

It seems redundant...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #34
37. You obviously don't want to see, as it's been explained repeatedly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. The statement about the rider is false, Stupak does NOT prevent a person paying for an abortion wit
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 08:21 AM by uponit7771
...their own money or buying a rider to do so it does prevent federal funds from being used to pay for an abortion and I've only asked how is that different from what is CURRENTLY law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #22
76. That's not true at all
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:05 AM by sandnsea
If that were true, then there'd be no problem. They don't have to offer anything.

They have to offer an abortion-free plan if they offer a plan with abortion. That's not the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
103. that is a bald faced lie
actually the opposite is true. Companies that offer a plan which covers abortion have to offer an identical plan which doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
75. A supplemental plan is not a rider
It's a completely separate plan that a woman has to go find someone to buy it from. It's not necessary and adds a stigma to the purchase of the policy.

A rider on ALL insurance policies, just a simple paragraph with a check box, would be an acceptable alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
100. This "rider" or "supplemental plan"
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 10:44 PM by TicketyBoo
argument doesn't hold water because most women don't use abortions for birth control. They don't anticipate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. They take measures to prevent such an occurrence, but birth control sometimes fail or pregnancies go wrong, and the fetus dies and an abortion is necessary.

Since they don't anticipate this happening to them, when an abortion is necessary, they aren't going to have a supplemental policy. Few people buy extra insurance for something that they think is not going to happen to them.

This is why it's a big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. The major difference is that the Stupak amendment prevents you
from using your private funds to buy insurance that covers abortions.

If you are a private insurance company and offer abortions as part of your coverage you are not allowed to be listed on the "exchange". This would likely destroy any insurance company because it would seriously limit their access to customers. It would cause ALL Insurance firms to exclude abortion health care coverage.

If your family earned $50,000 a year and you want health insurance to cover abortions, want to use your own private money to buy it, your family could not because it would be un-affordable or unavailable. Suppose you did want that fantasy abortion health insurance policy that Stupak claimed you could buy. You could not buy it even with your own private funds because at $50,000 a year you would receive some amount of "subsidy" from the government and thus you would NOT be allowed to buy health care with abortion coverage. I think only people earning over $88,000 receive absolutely NO subsidy from the government.

Suppose you saved your money and put it aside so you could afford this imaginary abortion coverage, at $55,000 a year you are legally prevented from buying abortion coverage by law if the Stupak amendment went thru. So these right-to-lifers could arrest you if you bought such a policy (or murder you which seems to be their preferred method of public policy control).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Taking the face of the bill you can buy an insurance rider for abortions can't you?
I'm not interested in conjecture about availability...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Should men be be required to buy a "rider" for constitutionally protected legal health care services
?

If so, which ones? And why weren't they added to Stupak?

You're being willfully ignorant and clearly there's no way to make you see how that's discriminatory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. Only If I can't use federal funds or anything related to federal funds to pay for the procedure
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. So... what health care services for men have been excluded?
Waiting....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. The ones that currently prevent federal funds used to pay for them? TIA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. Which are....?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. The ones that are currently under law. Look, I don't like the Hyde amendement either it's stupid...
...but I'd be more upset now if what Stupak did was add additional restrictions to Stupak.

Right now if a person wants an abortion they pay for it themselves, I don't see Stupak changing that much.

TIA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #43
65. Right now, many insurance companies and states will pay for it
Let's face it, you don't want constructive conversation. The differences between Hyde and Stupak have been provided to you repeatedly, yet you continue to ignore it and keep jumping non points that have already been refuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #65
78. Please link and quote Stupak PREVENTING states from payin with their OWN FUNDs as they do today...
...for abortions.

Before you label someone it's best to have your shit together,.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #16
30. Nikki, I'm intersted in constructive conversation with accurate information not name calling
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Who did I call what name?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. Here
"...This OP is dishonest and full of shit..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #35
39. Your POST is dishonest
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 08:25 AM by PeaceNikki
and full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #39
102. Well, maybe you should have spelled it out
because I took "OP" to mean "Original Poster."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #16
69. I don't know, you tell us. It's your taxes.
If there is a procedure in mens health that you have a moral problem with, I have a hard time faulting your for expressing your feelings about spending your taxes on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. I think excluding care based on moral convictions is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. Then that is the argument you should be making.
I think that applying domestic argument rules to a public policy question ("No abortion for me? Fine! No Viagra for you!!") is a bad tactic.

There are so many inherent, and unavoidable, unfairnesses in the legislation that it's impossible to separate them all. The overriding picture should one of maximizing the public health benefit. It should not be turned into yet another front on the bigger gender war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #79
83. Follow along.
That's not what I've said. ANYwhere. At all. Ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. I have found one tangible non status quo difference and that is in congressional procedure to ...
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:36 AM by uponit7771
...play the amendments in force. Hyde is voted on every year and can be taking out easily while Stupak is not, all the other argument outside of the rider aren't based on what the amendment says but on what someone else said the amendment says.

I don't think the congressional procedure is enough to kill the whole thing though and Stupak started more crap than what it was worth....I think it's called a poison pill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. I have never advocated killing the bill over Stupak, but I will *NOT* defend it as "OK".
Ever. And you don't have to, either.

Remember that it was the fucking DFLA who threatened to kill it. Not the Dems who oppose Stupak.

There are a good number of Dems who voted against Stupak and for the bill. THAT is the proper Democratic action.

The DFLA can FOADIAF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #85
89. Agreed, Hyde is not OK either IMHO. I'm thinking one benefit from Stupak right now is it will expose
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 11:44 AM by uponit7771
...the religious right for what they are; buncha political hacks.

Obama said earlier this year that the reason why the Christians who are supposed to care for the sick were staying out of the HCR fight was because they were being lied to about abortion being funded in the legislation. I've listen to the religious right radio stations before and EVERY SINGLE TIME I listened they lied about abortion and HCR.

They can't do that now, the more noise about this the better and I'll be pushing for Stupak to be taking out of the bill now because of the procedural issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #89
91. Indeed. Hyde is in and of itself a violation of Roe v Wade.
And maybe.... just MAYBE this whole discussion will bring all of that to light.

Look, I am VERY passionate about the right to choose and I will fight for privacy and access and all of the things that Roe v Wade stood for. I also very much value health care and I am SICKENED that these jackasses are trying to backdoor restricting access. That's what they're trying to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. NO, NO, NO
NO, you can't. This is NOT conjecture. It is fact. If you make less than $88,000 a year you are subsidized by the government to some extent. Stupak would prevent you from using any, all, a little, any amount, of your private earnings to buy an imaginary abortion health insurance rider.


What part of NO do you not understand? The N or the O.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #21
46. Link and quote the private earnings part if you don't mind, TIA. A person can CURENTLY pay for
..an abortion with their own money how does Stupak change that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #21
87. read the amendment again. particularly parts B and C
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LaydeeBug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Thank you fasttense, telling it like it is is like a tonic to these bullshitters. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
38. Again, Stupak allows for purchase of a rider but not with federal funds how is that different from
...the Hyde amendment in purpose?

TIA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #10
86. no it doesn't. look at parts B and C of the amendment
you're spreading disinfo
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
101. Of course,
you can still save up enough money to be able to pay for an abortion on your own. That still will be possible.

Of course, it shouldn't matter how much conservatives rail about "Not with MY taxes," because we all pay taxes for things with which we do not agree, but this is the way it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
11. three? As if making in permanant is not enough?
Give me 4.8 reasons Tim Kaine is better than a Republican homophobe. 4 will NOT do. Because I say so. Ready, go. Tim Kaine's bigotry is better than Republican bigotry because.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. People can name 300, I wanted just 3
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. You could not buy an abortion rider on your insurance policy unless you made more
than $88,000 a year. The rich seem to be able to do any damn thing they want. Only the poor are held to follow arbitrary and capricious law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. Unnn, can you link and quote that. That's not what I heard or read my understanding is you can buy
...the rider and all insurance companies that wont cover your abortion under the pool have to offer a rider of some sort.

My main point is though the Stupak amendment keeps federal funds from being used for abortions just like the Hyde amendment but doesn't outlaw them or make abortions any harder to get than today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #33
49. Unnn - you've been asked multiple times BUT WON"T ANSWER
about the validity of forcing a woman to BUY extra coverage for female-specific legal health care while not doing the same for male-specific legal health care. The responding posters took your questions as legitimate and sincere. This is obviously not the case. ANSWER THE QUESTION or look like the deliberately obtuse bozo you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #49
54. Again, having anybody buy extra coverage for HC is stupid and that doesn't change current law. Hyde
...is already in place and I've asked for link and quote on the private expense prohibition.

Thx
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #33
51. You are wrong.
"Rep: Diana DeGette: To say Stupak Amendment "is a wolf in sheep's clothing is an understatement." The Health Care reform bill does not spend one federal dollar on abortion. (Page 246, line 11.) Under the amendment, those obtaining insurance under the public option, would not be able to receive an abortion, even if they buy the policy with their own money."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435

Here is a link to read it for yourself.

The wording is very poor. But it clearly outlines who can and can NOT purchase a legal medical procedure called abortion and if you receive any federal funding even through the state, you can NOT purchase the rider or policy containing it. Look at SEC. 265 paragraph (b)(2)(A) and (B). Which directly conflicts with wording elsewhere in the bill. It is done to hide the fact that it is saying any woman who gets a subsidy or credit toward health care (and/or uses the exchange) can NOT purchase a specific legal medical procedure.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #51
55. I did NOT say the can't do it with THEIR OWN MONEY like Hyde says now. I've read that part and it...
..does NOT make it illegal or does NOT prevent a person from taking THEIR OWN MONEY and paying for an abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #29
48. The very fact that women are being asked to PAY EXTRA for a rider
for health care is beyond the pale. DAMM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #48
56. My question is how is that different from today!?!? I agree it's stupid but it doesnt change any law
...that's currently in place in regards to federal funding of abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
52. What?
I was asking YOU to defend Tim Kaine's bigotry, under my conditions. You failed to do so. In fact, you did not even try. So thanks for playing! This has been another episode of arbitrary DU questionings! Next week, 5 ways torture is just like a fun hazing!
I think you really need to explain why, if the law is a duplicate as you dream it is, there is need for it at all? If it is just a repetition of Hyde, and will change nothing, why is it needed? Give 3 reasons. Or 300. But it is on you to explain your premise, not others. If it makes no changes, then why are they wasting time on it, and making such divisions? All of that for 'no difference'? Explain. Thanks in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #52
58. My point was anyone can come up with an infinate number of reasons good or bad I just wanted the
...3 that changed Stupak from what is currently in force today in the Hyde.

Again, Stupak like Hyde doesn't prevent a person from taking their money and paying for an abortion...there's no law in place preventing such
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
57. Abortion rights are fundamental rights
it is that simple!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. I agree, my question is how does Stupak add to any restrictions Hyde has already
...put in place.

Someone linked sec 265 to the amendment which reads JUST like Sec 507 of the Hyde amendment here, I don't see where Stupak added any restrictions in context of the Hyde amendment to current law...if anything it was redundant and a waste of time

http://www.nchla.org/datasource/ifactsheets/4FSHydeAm22a.08.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Stupak prevents insurance companies from offering abortion coverage
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

"This vote is a reminder to America's pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies," Keenan said. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman's right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That's why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate."

Keenan said anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion "rider" that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:

• The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.

• Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Link and quote this FROM THE AMENDEMNTS not from some blog. The amendments DO NOT say this
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #63
95. If the insurance companies want to belong to the exchange...
they can not offer abortion.

Think about it and follow it to the end conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. Again, that's NOT what the amendement says and that's not what anyone has posted and from what
...I heard on NPR is that they CAN offer abortion without federal funds but they'd have to offer a rider with no abortion provision in the policy and vise versa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #96
97. And you don't think requiring a special rider is discrimination?
I am stunned at the ones here who are defending the discrimination against women in national health care reform.

I hope they continue, though, in a way.

The party is showing itself for its true colors, and we are saving so much money that used to go to donations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. The OP didn't say he supported the amendment.
Just that it doesn't differ much from current law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
61. Wow...the OP is bigtime deliberately obtuse.
Of course, asking for three differences instead of just one indicates that this one like to dictate the terms.

Best to leave the thread alone....it is not going to go anywhere. In fact, the OP is running around in other threads acting as if no one here could even name ONE difference.

Classic spin, but disingenuous when the OP says they want an "honest" debate. This thread is nothing of the kind...it is leading a horse to water and watching him piss in the bushes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #61
64. Link and quote FROM THE AMENDMENTS then the difference between Sec 236 of Stupak
...and 507 of Hyde and not from some blog.

I've asked this over and over again and I get nothing but condescension instead of a constructive answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #64
70. I have seen constructive answers on this thread which you ignored
I am not playing this game with you. How can I possibly compete with someone that nothing at all to do all day but spin all over a message board? So go ahead and post your 100th post of the day in the service of your spin, but do not even attempt to drag me into your bullshit.

I have a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #70
71. ANOTHER person refuses to state the difference between the sections. Is this DU or FR?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #71
73. Ummm...I never said I would
Because, you see, that is playing your game by your rules (rules you have not demonstrated to follow on this thread). So you can spin it that I was going to answer your question when I had no intention of it. I only wanted to point out that you are acting like a hack.

I think I have demonstrated my point, so sit-and-spin all you like. It's all just hackery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. I'm interested in an accurate answer from the amendments, someone did point out that Stupak doesn't
...come up every year for vote like Hyde does so it'll be harder to take out of law than Hyde is right now.

That's a tangible difference to fuss about but not to reject the whole house bill IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
noiretextatique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #64
106. why don't you find the amendment yourself and read it?
why didn't you do that before you posted this thread? :dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
62. How is it going to be any different than things stand now? FYI, only 2% of women per year have one.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 10:37 AM by ClarkUSA

And the abortion rate is going down: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Before the HCR bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment, if a woman relied on Medicaid or Medicare for her primary health insurance,
and wanted an elective abortion, she would either have to have additional private insurance to cover it, look for state funding (if
she lived in such a state that allowed and financed the procedure) or pay for the procedure out of pocket.

Nothing has changed. No new laws, no new restrictions.

Women already have to pay extra for abortion insurance. Nothing has changed.

FYI, it's expected that this language will be removed in conference, especially since Pres. Obama has signalled his disapproval.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #62
66. It's not IMHO, Sec 236 of Stupak is almost word for word of Sec 507 of Hyde, some are grasping on to
...straws now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. You're right. But no matter, the language will be removed in conference. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tonysam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #66
104. Yep, you are right, but I think a lot of people don't understand
the poor do not have federally subsidized abortions "on demand" now and haven't for years. I believe the so-called "blogs" (not DU, but blogs, especially so-called "feminist" ones) were fueling this nonsense that the poor somehow were going to be screwed over by Stupak. Then, when it's pointed out that it is perfectly legal for the federal and state governments restrict funding for abortions, they try and divert the fact they are getting upset over something that has been legal for 33 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #62
67. Now on the other hand it does take away the religious rights opposition to HCR. I've listened to
...the religious talk radio stations and they all lie out of the teeth when it comes to federal funding of abortion via HCR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
72. With the Stupak amendment, you have to buy seperate abortion insurance
that isn't listed on any insurance exchange. With the Hyde amendment, you can get abortion coverage from your current plan but that portion won't be funded by the federal government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #72
80. nicely said. but some think it is OK that women have to pay extra!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. My question was in regards to changes from what is done now with federal dollars. As of now...
...you have to pay extra anyway BECAUSE of the Hyde amendment.

Sec 236 of Stupak and 507 of Hyde differ very little in wording
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #82
93. They said it also affects indirect money from the feds
and it could cause hospitals to loose federal money if they did abortions whether by private insurance or not.

that to me is the biggest difference. It might cause no one to be able to get abortions even with their own insurance because hospitals and other clinics get other monies from feds that would be stopped if they did abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #82
94. My issue is with the restrictions placed on insurance companies
which have to restructure their plans and coverage to accommodate the amendment, which will result in less people getting coverage for abortion.

The effect on the federal dollars is going to be the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #80
88. they have to pay extra now as well
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #72
81. hx, this give me a section I have to read because what I heard on NPR yesterday was the HCI's HAVE
...to provide for a rider on the exchange and are mandated to do so if they're not offering it in their current plans.

The person talking said Stupak doesn't prevent an HCI from offering in plan (no rider) abortion insurance just that if the HCI doesn't it has to provide a rider in the pool.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
90. Watch the Degette video. It will open your eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
105. By the way, the Carly Fiorina campaign is advertising on this thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 29th 2024, 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC