WHAT'S BETTER? 3962 with Stupak or NO bill at all?

[RoadRage]

It seems that in just over 24 hours since the House passed H.R. 3962, Many here on DU are more upset then if it hadnt' been passed at all! So, I ask you - what do you think would have been best?

[bluetrain]

1. This bill is unacceptable.

[RoadRage]

2. So, in your opinion it is worse then nothing? We'd be better of with No Healtcare plan at all?

I'm not arguing you - I really don't know enough about what the heck was just passed to have an idea. I'm trying to learn myself. I would like to think that something is better then nothing - but if this is not the case, then I want to know that too.

[bluetrain]

4. It reduces women to less than equal status under the law. Yes, it's worse than nothing.

[RoadRage]

8. How?

Right now if I want to have an abortion - I have to pay for it. Most insurance carries won't cover it, and I don't think the government will cover it either. And, the process is still legal.

So, even if this bill passes - that part doesn't change. YOu can still have an abortion - you just have to continue to pay for it yourself.

I actually don't have a problem with this not being paid for by the taxpayer. I would have a problem with it not being LEGAL.

I also realize that on DU, i'm in the minority. In the country - I am not. I'm OK with that. And yes, I'm a woman.

[bluetrain]

10. Full coverage should mean full coverage for everyone, even women. This is a civil rights issue.

[Hepburn]

29. Let's say you choose the public option under this bill and you qualify for...

...aid because of low income...but you are paying your fair share in consideration of your income.

It's one thing if government tax monies cannot be used to fund an abortion ~~ note: I do not agree with that ~~ but YOUR own funds which you paid per the mandate placed upon you to buy insurance, that money cannot be used to fund a medical procedure you and your medical provider both agree would be of benefit to you.

That is bullshit...and discriminatory as all hell against women.

[quiller4]

50. I don't feel discriminated against by the bill but I do feel harmed

by the present circumstance.

[wisteria]

63. You are correct. No federal money goes to pay for abortions- that is the Hyde Amendment.

You had to pay for an abortion before this house bill and you have to pay for it after. I don't see what the huge deal is about this.

[treestar]

9. It makes us worse off than we were before?

How will you explain that to the women who will be covered for health care when now they are covered for nothing?

[bluetrain]

11. Legislating second class citizenry sets a terrible precedent. And, as has been noted in myriad

other threads, there's been no explicit quantification of what "affordable" means. Poor women who have not be able to afford comprehensive insurance may still not be able to afford insurance and it is now guaranteed to not be comprehensive.

[Zynx]

14. That already existed under the Hyde amendment.

This isn't new. This was overturning an exclusion of the Hyde amendment to this particular bill.

[bluetrain]

17. Stupak's amendment expands Hyde.

[Hepburn]

30. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. n/t

[dionysus]

27. it doesn't outlaw abortion. seriously, you'd kill reform over this?

crazy.

[Hepburn]

32. You would tear down all those nice schools they built for the AA children under...

...the doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson?

:eyes:

[dionysus]

41. thats a bullshit analogy. you really want to kill reform over the coverage of an elective procedure

come on. people are using this as their last excuse to try and kill this. pathetic.

[HughMoran]

3. This is a sad episode in DU history.

Don't let it get to you.

[rwheeler31]

5. I think some progressives need to sit on the

naughty stool and acquire some patience. Did you really think this was going to be easy?

[Beacool]

6. There are ideals and there is pragmatism, but one should not sell one's soul

in the name of compromise. A person, and a political party, should stand for certain things that are non negotiable. The Stupak amendment should have been a deal breaker. What passed yesterday in the House is a travesty.

We'll see what the Senate does with this pile of manure.

If the amendment remains, then the Democratic party is not a party that represents me and I will either vote third party or stay home come election time.

:shrug:

[demwing]

7. Saving lives IS non-negotiable /nt

[Hepburn]

36. In this case, the "life" being saved is a fetus. n/t

[dionysus]

43. it's not outlawing the procedure. and you know that. and abortions weren't covered before.

[demwing]

48. Agreed, No new law was made, no new restrictions were set

all is as it was since 1976.

Funny how a week ago, no one was speaking out against Hyde. It was unpopular but accepted legislation.

[Egnever]

19. Unless Hillary runs again right?

[Beacool]

22. Of course I would vote for Hillary if she ran again.

I trust her.

;-)

[karynnj]

33. Assuming for a moment that the amendment stays as is throught the

conference bill and Obama signed it, if Hillary Clinton were to run again would you ask her if she would have voted yes had she remained in the Senate or vetoed the HCR bill if she were President?

I am sure it would not be an easy choice for her. I seriously doubt that either she or Obama would veto the bill to keep funding for abortion. I assume both would prefer the amendment to be taken out.

[Beacool]

39. Hillary would be furiously making calls asking for the amendment to be removed.

Obama to me is always too detached. A little fire in the belly and passion is needed. Like FDR used to say: "I agree, now make me do it".

[karynnj]

44. Hillary was as much a triangulator as Bill Clinton

Can you give me even one example of anything controversial she fought hard for as US Senator doing what you describe? The only fire and passion I ever saw from Hillary Clinton was in wanting to win the nomination. I assume what either Clinton or Obama will do is to try to get the language to result in not moving from the existing uneasy status quo. The fact is that 74% of abortions are paid out of pocket now. This is not making abortion illegal and I can't tell from the language if this will even change the percent paid now.

[Beacool]

58. You are always so dismissive of Hillary.

I'll give you one instance where Hillary fought tooth and nail to get something done. She was one of the first people to realize how sick the fire fighters and all first responders could become from inhaling the polluted air of Ground Zero. She had to fight the WH every step of the way to get them to fulfill their financial obligation.

When Hillary entered the Senate she was not particularly popular with the NYFD. She even got booed by some at an event right after 9/11. Years later when she was running for president they endorsed her and ended their statement with these words:

"She's our hero."

This is the only endorsement of any candidate that made me cry. I saw upfront what these men and women gave up that morning. Hillary CARED deeply, not just for them, but for countless others. She has helped many people privately with no hoopla and no cameras. I've seen her in action. Why the hell do you think that some of us are as loyal to her as we are?

[karynnj]

67. That was not controversial and it was supported by everyone in the country

EVERY NY, NJ, CT legislator was involved in that and it was a politically popular thing to get. The fact is that in 2008, the Firefighters' Union did not endorse Hillary Clinton. They endorsed Chris Dodd. Now, given that Dodd had no chance to win, this was really a rejection of the top tier candidates. http://www.iaff.org/07news/pdf/dodd%20endorsement%20day.pdf (A local NYC fightfighters union did endorse Hillary Clinton - she was not as well received as Biden and Dodd at the national convention.)

This is not an example of taking a political risk - no one was against the NYC firefighters.

What you see as dismissive on my part is that I really do not see HRC as a person who takes great political risks.

[quiller4]

51. I doubt that very much. She is a pragmatic politician as is Pelosi

Which is a reason to admire both of them.

[Aramchek]

54. Hillary already failed at this. Or don't you recall?

[Beacool]

55. And you think that 1993 was the same as 2009???

Hillary had to wear a bullet proof vest while campaigning for health care around the country. The hatred was such that she privately confessed that she was stunned and depressed by it.

[Aramchek]

57. it's just funny seeing you tout her as the one who could get things done.

unlike that awful Barack Obama
:sarcasm:

It must really upset you that Obama will be the one who History credits as bringing us Universal Health Coverage.

[Beacool]

60. Frankly, I couldn't care less.

I care far more that we get a good bill and the House bill is nothing to brag about.

[RoadRage]

20. I prefer not to let one issue make my voting decisions for me..

but do what you wish. This was better then nothing, and nothing is what we had unless we comprimised. All Republicans, and some democrats have constituents who don't see this the same way we do. We either comprimise with them, or stick to our principals, and continue to watch women die from cancer, heart failure, etc. At least this is a step in the right direction, IMO. I don't like the amendment.. but I like it better then nothing.

[Beacool]

23. No one expected a perfect bill, there is no such animal.

But this is beyond compromising, this is dismissing a basic principle of the Democratic party.

:-(

[jenmito]

65. You underestimate the first woman Speaker of the House. She only let the amendment be voted on so

the bill could pass out of the House (and then it'll most likely get stripped out LATER). Maybe some people here can't think that far ahead. :shrug:

[Hepburn]

35. +1

[backscatter712]

12. Stupak will get stripped.

House Progressives are threatening to torpedo the final bill if the Stupak amendment's still in there when it comes back from conference committee, so at minimum, it'll get watered down, and with luck, it'll be stripped entirely.

[Zynx]

13. Saying that 3962 is worse than the current health care system is irrational.

I literally do not even begin to comprehend that position.

[RoadRage]

15. Yeah, i'm not seeing the logic either..

I keep thinking i'm missing something. But, right now it appears as though MOST women who have an abortion have to pay for it now.. and if this were even to pass "as is".. it is still legal, and those women would still have to pay for their own abortion - just as they currently do. The only thing that changes is that they DON'T have to pay for the rest of their medical care.. that would now be covered.

Seems like a win to me...

[karynnj]

42. Thank you for your sane comments

Everything that I could find with goggle agrees with you. Here is a link that says that as many as 74% of abortions in 2001 were paid for out of pocket. http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html 13% were paid by Medicaid and 13% by private companies - I wonder if that low percentage included medically indicated abortions and maybe severely damaged fetuses.

This article looks at the issue from the other side - that the health care plan could potentially eliminate the Hyde amendment.

"Abortion opponents are concerned that health-care legislation pending in Congress would nullify the Hyde Amendment and other measures, as well as require private health insurers and any public health insurance programs to pay for abortion. Currently, insurers are neither required nor forbidden to pay for abortions. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072201802.html

From this perspective and the statistics at the first link, the real question is whether the amendment really does shift where we currently are. It might be that in conference, the language can be written to insure that the status quo does not change. That might be the most likely solution that does not lose votes on the left or right. It also recognizes that this is an issue where there are good people on both sides with strong moral reasons behind there believes here. Either side winning 100% is not a solution that will stand the test of time. This may lead to non-profit organizations helping people who can't afford it.

[Kaleva]

45. Yep.

[prolesunited]

59. Well, if thousands more people have to die

before we craft and have enough VOTES in Congress to pass the "perfect" bill, so be it. :eyes:

BTW, I'm a woman and have been with DU since the beginning, so don't bother calling me a misogynist or an interloper.

I loathe the Stupak amendment, but if we can't get it out before reform is enacted, I would rather have that than no reform.

[tinrobot]

16. How about we pick our battles?

Wars aren't usually won in a single spectacular battle. You gain ground incrementally. This moves us towards our goal. The amendment can always be repealed later when this battle is over.

[Beacool]

21. Wasn't that the same excuse used around here when Obama voted on the FISA bill?

:eyes:

[MNDemNY]

26. But now, we all LOVE the FISA bill!

[Beacool]

31. You're probably right.

x(

[MNDemNY]

40. Sadly.

[demosincebirth]

18. Here we go again Dems...shooting ourselves in the foot again.!

Just like we have in the past, so many times...sigh

[MNDemNY]

24. Actually your poll is fucked up.

It should have an option: NO, the bill should be killed, we should run congressional candidates on REAL REFORM (ie Medicare for all), then pass real reform in 2011!

[ThomCat]

28. Yes, any serious poll should have more than just two false choices.

:(

If anyone can't see a way to fight for something better, or is too lazy to fight for anything but the bill that is on the floor, then this is what we end up with.

[MNDemNY]

34. Yes, we must not question "the one".

He needs a "win" The Rose Garden Signing Ceremony will cure what ails us!!! Nothing else matters. We are in perpetual campaign mode, just as was the * administration. We criticized them then, but now it is OK.

[ThomCat]

37. It is really sick how many people here have become EXACTLY

what we criticized (and what They criticized) in the Bush administration. Somehow the irony escapes them because everything is different when their idol is up on the altar.

[MNDemNY]

38. Yup, but we are "haters".

For them it is all about politics. Governing is a mere afterthought.They are the cowards.

[Jennicut]

56. "the one" ? I prefer plain old President Obama but then that is just me.

[MNDemNY]

66. whatever works for you.

[Jennicut]

25. The amendment sucks and is horrible to women

By I still want the good things in that bill....especially covering pre-existing conditions. For many of us here, that is extremely important to us and a matter of life and death at times. I am one of the lucky ones to be covered by insurance, many are not.
I am more pissed at Stupak and his buddies for trying to hold this bill hostage. Total jerk. And his ties to "The Family" make me sick. Perhaps blue dogs need to be cut loose in the party...at least the ones that refuse to even pretend to be Dems. They sure are not Dems to me. We don't need that big of a majority anyway if thirty something of them won't even vote for the final bill while they voted for amendment. The overall bill passed without those fools. Close, but still don't need them.

[quiller4]

52. Abortion is still legal. It was a covered procedure in few states

and under few insurance policies before this bill became law. A safe abortion today costs about 10% of what it did in the early 1970s when I was seeking to change Washington state law. Do young women have greater choice to day that they did 30 or 40 years ago? es. Would I have voted for this bill with the Stupak amendment? Absolutely. Would I cut the Blue Dogs loose? Hell no. Why would I want to replace moderate Democrats I can sometimes sway with conservative Republicans who don't even acknowledge that I exist?

This active senior Democratic female doesn't think this bill or the amendment is "horrible to women". Perhaps you would like a litany of chronic diseases that women are much more likely to suffer and for which they've been denied coverage. Here is a start: Graves Disease, Hashimoto Syndrome, Primary Biliary Cirrhosis, MS, Lupus, ... Is that enough? Now the millions of women suffering from these autoimmune disorders (and the few men so challenged) can obtain insurance coverage. That alone would be enough for me to support the bill.

[Hutzpa]

46. This poll is unfair. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

47. The bill is false reform that rewards the criminal behavior of the insurance industry

And that was even BEFORE the Stupid amendment.

[prolesunited]

61. And what do you think we could do in the *next year*

to help the millions who would be immediately aided by the bills passage.

Those who are running out of COBRA coverage
Those with pre-existing conditions
Those who have hit the lifetime maxes

[depakid]

49. What would be better is to take him out in the next primary

[PVnRT]

53. We should just accept and support the Stupak amendment.

After all, that's the only choice other than completely opposing the bill. :sarcasm:

[wisteria]

62. I think we need to get a bill passed and then introduce legislation later to revise this.

I don't like it one bit that women's rights always seem to be negotiable, but we need to pass a health care bill. The abortion wording was one of the things that held this up in the house. If it comes down to holding my nose and accepting this for now or not passing a bill at all, then I will vote for the bill now.

[old mark]

64. Better than nothing, but not much. This is a real lesson in the process of

legislation in the US - like swimming in a sewer and claiming it's healthful.

I had very little respect for members of congress of any party or persuasion, and this exercise is proving me right - and it will get worse. By the time this mess gets through the Senate it will contain hardly anything remotely benefitting the people. The corporations, the Catholic Church, the other various large organizations who really run this country will be happy with the result, though, and the congress will again congratulate itself on a job well done and wonder why we are not all enthralled with them.

Still, it will be better than what is now.

mark

[marlakay]

68. I voted no because don't we realize that we will

be changing one of the firm things democrats believe in which is to give women rights. The republicans will use it along with blue dogs to eventually make abortion illegal. In many of the red states there aren't abortion clinics for free that poor can go to so many unwanted children will be born and there will be many problems from this.

I want health care but not at the cost of losing womens rights. We fought for many years for those rights and if we let them go for the greater good...what else will we lose?

I already hate that most leaders in the country and corporations are men...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

69. nicely expressed

[optimator]

70. "enjoy your crumbs, peons"

"you are lucky to get anything."
right?