Democrats are spineless
Well, I guess I shouldn't say that statement applies to all Democrats. However, I'm certainly willing to question a good chunk of them after this weekend.
The House passed their version of health care reform, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, this weekend. The bill includes, among other things, a public option to be established by (I believe) 2013. However, it's something that made it in there at the last minute that really shows what could be in store.
The House bill contains the Stupak Amendment, which lays out what is covered and not covered with regards to abortions. Stupak's concern was that he didn't want public funding to pay for abortions. This would mainly be the public insurance option and private companies that participate in the health care exchange also proposed in the bill. The bill originally stated that this could be remedied in a few steps:
- Have providers set up two seperate accounts: one for public money and one for money from premiums. Any abortions covered would be out of the premium account.
- For people who didn't want their premium money potentially going towards funding abortions, there would have to be at least one plan in the exchange that does not cover abortion, as well as one that does.
Problem solved? Not if you're Bart Stupak.
The passed bill includes Stupak's amendments which basically states two very important tidbits:
- Any person or family receiving a government subsidy for health insurance (also included in the bill) is prohibited from purchasing a plan that covers abortions.
- Any insurance comapny that participates in the government exchange is prohibited from covering abortions, except in the case of rape, incest, and the "mother's life being in danger."
Approximately 50% of insurance plans offer some sort of coverage for abortions as of 2008. So basically, if you're a member of Blue Cross/Blue Shield and your plan covers abortions, you would lose this coverage regardless if you get insurance through an employer, through a government subsidy, or even if you pay your entire premium out-of-pocket.
This a serious hit to reproductive rights. But that's not even the part that makes me the maddest. What makes me really angry is that a good percentage of the Democrats who voted for the bill did so despite carrying the "pro-choice" banner. Pelosi, for example, has a voting history that has been scored as 100% pro-choice. But she, along with many Democrats, were so desperate to pass a health care bill that it didn't matter if it clashed with one of the major ideals for many in the party.
So now we're one step closer to "reform." Great. Too bad this is going to do nothing but potentially kill the bill in the Senate and/or anger a good percentage of the pro-choice demographic. Go ahead and celebrate your "victory," Madam Speaker, but some of us see this for what it truly is: selling yourself out to pass something that was nothing more than a self-serving move with the hopes of advancing your political career.
And sadly, that simply makes you one of roughly 540 people in Congress who are just as bad.
Recent Greatness
Blogroll
- Extended AIM Profile Terence’s blog
- Profiles in Cuteness
- Shanenanigans Shane Ryan’s blog
- The Elephant Flies at Night
- The Mrs.
Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jul | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
November 18th, 2009 - 05:26
what doesn’t make sense to me is this:
85% of americans have insurance
15% dont, and need it. (regardless of the fact that a good portion of these people are lazy and don’t want or try to get jobs)
So instead of saying 100% of americans need whatever healthcare forced upon us (which probably would not be the utopia the supporters think it is as the gov’ cannot properly run much of anything), it makes more sense to me to just go ahead and give the 15% a public healthcare option. I mean, us employed inividuals are going to be paying for it anyway–and lets face it, it’s a lot cheaper to pay for 15% of the population than 100% of the population.
Still not the ideal situation, but MORE power to the government is never a good idea.
November 19th, 2009 - 12:19
I agree that it is a mess. Yes, health care needs to be overhauled but not at the risk of giving us something worse than we have. So you won’t meet your deadline. It is better to be late and have something worth having than to just throw something together so people can stop hollering about healthcare. Of course, it is still to be determined if this gets through the Senate (which I will be greatly surprised if it does).