Skip to main content

One of the statics that's been tossed out quite often since the House passed the Stupak amendment is this one, here used by E.J. Dionne at TNR.

Whatever else is true, Stupak's amendment is unlikely to have a significant effect on the availability of abortion, since most abortions are not paid for through health insurance. The Guttmacher Institute, for example, reported that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were directly billed by providers to insurance companies--although the institute cautioned that this figure did not include "women who obtain reimbursement from their insurance company themselves."

Actually, it goes just beyond the issue of women who directly obtain reimbursements. Here's the Guttmacher Institute's researchers in their own words, setting the record straight on this statistic.

[T]hat statistic alone misrepresents the situation on three counts:

  • Our study included all women who obtained abortions in 2001, including women on Medicaid and those who are uninsured. If one looked only at privately insured women, the percentage of procedures billed directly to insurance companies would be substantially higher than 13%.
  • Perhaps even more importantly, the 13% statistic does not include women who pay for an abortion up front and then seek reimbursement from their insurance provider. This is common when a medical provider does not participate in a patient’s insurance plan, as is often the case with small, specialized providers, including abortion providers.
  • Lastly, some of the women whom our study identified as paying out of pocket likely had insurance coverage for abortion care, but may not have known they had it or chose not to use it for reasons of confidentiality. Given the stigma that still surrounds abortion, many women might not have wanted their insurer or employer—or their spouse or parent who may be the primary policyholder—to learn that they had obtained an abortion. That antiabortion activists who have worked for decades to perpetuate that stigma are now turning around and using it to argue why women should not be able to purchase insurance coverage for abortion is deeply cynical.

The best available evidence—from two studies conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation—suggests that most Americans with employer-based insurance currently have coverage for abortion. Further, as outlined above, direct billing does not equate to either extent of coverage or even use of coverage. Guttmacher’s 13% statistic, therefore, should not be cited as evidence that insurance coverage for abortion is not widespread or to suggest that restricting such coverage would have an impact on only a small minority of women. [emphasis mine]

Abortion is a particularly difficult procedure to get accurate statistics around. As mention above, the stigma attached often leads to under-reporting. Additionally, for insurance purposes a D&C is a D&C. In this mix are elective abortions for unplanned pregnancies as well as for abortions for the health of the mother. Legislation that makes any of these abortions made harder to obtain by putting them out of financial reach, and in reality making them impossible to obtain for many women, is regressive to say the least.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:16 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Reading the George Carlin memoir (5+ / 0-)

    he reminded us that pre-Roe v. Wade women who could afford it had something called a "D&C" or dilate and curettage done. They didn't call it an abortion but it was one all the same.

    I stand by the truth, that way I don't have to be near any Republicans.

    by ontheleftcoast on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:21:11 PM PST

    •  It's not really. It is a (0+ / 0-)

      procedure performed after a miscarriage to rid the uterus of leftover tissue.
      It is not an abortion.

      I am pro-choice, but let's not spread untruths about the procedure. A D&C, which my anti-choice mother had after nine pregnancies, is NOT an abortion.

      It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

      by AtlantaJan on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:11:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Some folks at wikipedia would disagree with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        redwagon, dkmich

        that, seems it is still done though not as common is it once was

        Curettage is also a declining method of abortion. It has been replaced by vacuum aspiration over the last decade

        From the link on curettage

        I stand by the truth, that way I don't have to be near any Republicans.

        by ontheleftcoast on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:22:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  A very clear resolution & clarification (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NewDealer

    of what had been apowerful, negative, arguing point.

    no remuneration was received by anyone for the writing of this message

    by ItsSimpleSimon on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:29:52 PM PST

    •  It's clear? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gravis

      It's no where near clear.  So the number's what?  14%? McJoan was having so much fun playing with numbers no attempt to figure it out was made. Freaking sheep.

      •  You misunderstand - clarity needs no number (0+ / 0-)

        Sure it is a clear resolution & clarification and the words that provide such clarification are largely from Guttmacher's own writing.

        Seems to me that you are placing far, far too much emphasis on the title of the FP story when claiming mcjoan was merely having fun playing with numbers. That an alternative statistic was not claimed is entirely beside the point - which you seem to have missed.

        The tenor of the piece is quite serious. The point clarified being that reliance on a 13% statistic is entirely unwise.

        But, then again, perhaps "sheep" actually read and do understand?

        no remuneration was received by anyone for the writing of this message

        by ItsSimpleSimon on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 03:39:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It just needs doubt, no matter how unreasonable? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LibrErica

          None of those points would make a rational person believe that the number is much higher than the 13% listed.  It's thus what?  14% 15%?  If that's all the summation of those points yields then no net effect is observed.  The number IS important - it's the only thing that elevates this from hand waving to data.

          If you're going to follow something, it should at least contain a reliable source of data.

          •  Boy - I still feel you are missing the point (0+ / 0-)

            If you're going to follow something, it should at least contain a reliable source of data.

            Those who were leaning on the 13% data point were following something, which something was then declared by the study authors to be unreliable for that application.

            Meanwhile, based on the statements from Guttmacher, there is no need,  - at present - in re Stupak amendment defenders and their use of the Gummacher study, to do anything other than point up that their use of that figure is devoid of merit.
            No hand waving of any type is needed, whether it is by you when claiming that "no rational person" would ever believe the number is actually much higher than 13%,thus staking out a position that it must be marginally higher. Of course that does mean that you are stating Gummacher themselves are irrational:

            If one looked only at privately insured women, the percentage of procedures billed directly to insurance companies would be substantially higher than 13%.

            Now, it seems to me you have an absolute insistence on knowing more precisely how many individuals with insurance for abortions later sought reimbursement, whether it is 14% or 40%, how many of those obtained that reimbursement and so on. All of which would surely yield useful social science data, though I strongly suspect anyone seeking that would run into precisely the roadblocks Gummacher encountered. Besides which it is totally separate from the issue that was raised in the FP story, and the message in the quoted Gummacher release therein.

            no remuneration was received by anyone for the writing of this message

            by ItsSimpleSimon on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:34:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  13% direct billed to private insurance? (0+ / 0-)

              If we only look at abortions in which the cost was billed to private insurance the percentage goes up to 100%

                  ooooh!

                  wow! let's use that statistic!

              This is the reason why nobody believes anybody's statistics.

              If you want to know how many abortions were paid for when the provider billed private insurance, then it's 13%.

              If you want to say that private insurance actually paid for abortions not reflected in that percentage, but you can't get data to support that statement because of whatever difficulties, then you can say Hey there are more, but I can't tell you how many more, but just trust me.

              And that's as far as you can go with it.

              Strong Media, Strong Democracy - Corporate Media, Corporate Democracy

              by LibrErica on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:13:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      redwagon

      Actually it's still just as powerful because you know what, of that 13%, how many get full coverage? How many have to pay co-pays and co-insurances and deductibles?

      •  You do realize that statistic (0+ / 0-)

        was being used by Stupak amendment proponents to diminish criticism of the laws impact on woman seeking full coverage? The same statistic the authors of the study say is misleading and misused when misapplied (as Stupak proponents do) out of context?

        That same statistic you say is still just as powerful?

        Having the merit of application of that number undercut by the study's own authoring agency is a good thing.

        no remuneration was received by anyone for the writing of this message

        by ItsSimpleSimon on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 03:52:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Honestly (6+ / 0-)

    Even after all these years of working with health insurance, I never knew they covered abortions except for maybe the health of the mother or the baby was not developing properly.  

    Well, I never read the fine print.

    I have known women who paid cash for their abortions.  I think more than anything else, so that it would not show up on their records.

    So, while this Stupak amendment pisses me off in principal, I do not believe it makes a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.

    Though I admit, it is one step closer to making abortions that much more difficult to obtain.

    And when is the Viagra amendment going to be added, you know, no federal dollars towards harder, stronger erections which are causing a few unexpected births in the first place?

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:29:52 PM PST

  •  So only a few thousand women would be tossed (7+ / 0-)

    into the dumpster with this amendment? Well, that certainly alleviates my concerns...

    Healthcare reform is the boot that's kicked over the rock to expose the teabaggers to the light...

    by wry twinger on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:34:04 PM PST

    •  Might I ask... (0+ / 0-)

      How?

      What does any woman lose if the Stupak amendment stays in the final bill?

      15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

      by BobTrips on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:40:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Autonomy over their personal medical choices? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        redwagon, martydd

        Healthcare reform is the boot that's kicked over the rock to expose the teabaggers to the light...

        by wry twinger on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:43:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hadn't heard about that. (0+ / 0-)

          How will they lose autonomy?

          And over what choices?

          15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

          by BobTrips on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:44:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's like this: (12+ / 0-)

            One of the biggest obstacles to women achieving independence and autonomy is the inability to control their own reproduction.  This is what keeps women poor.  This is what keeps women dependent on men who beat them.  This is what keeps women from going to college and pursuing careers.

            And if women do not have access to the means by which they control their reproduction, they cannot be fully autonomous.

            And if women cannot afford those methods of controlling reproduction, including abortion, it's the same thing as not having it available at all.

            I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

            by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:58:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Finally... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              redwagon

              I'm too tired to fight with morans right now...time for bed!

              Thanks for coming to my rescue!

              :^)

              Healthcare reform is the boot that's kicked over the rock to expose the teabaggers to the light...

              by wry twinger on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:59:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Let's look at the facts, please... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LibrErica, Gravis, OSCPJ

              First, those women who will be getting health insurance with federal funds help did not have abortion coverage before.  They had no health insurance.

              So they've lost nothing they had.

              Second, the cost per woman for abortions is extremely small.  Here are some quick numbers that I found.  Feel free to let me know if you find better....

              1. One out of 50 women between the ages of 14 and 55 get an abortion each year.
              1. The average cost of a first trimester abortion is $475.

              That makes the cost per woman $475/50 = $9.50 per year.  Per year.

              Now, looking at Stupak (which I read several times) it seems to me that any woman buying insurance with federal help is absolutely free to purchase an  abortion insurance rider.

              And, if you think about it, that rider is likely to be very affordable.  The insurance company is going to have to pay out less than $10 per year per rider purchaser.

              Now, I don't know how policies will be written, but ones that I've purchased in the past covered the purchaser, spouse and a limited number of children.  

              It's going to cost a lot to the insurance company to pay for a birth ($10,000 plus) and pay for health care for an infant than to pay for an abortion.  I'd think they would sell riders for a song.

              15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

              by BobTrips on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:08:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why would a woman buy a rider (5+ / 0-)

                for a procedure that is, by its very nature, something unforeseen. Are you assuming that there are millions of tarts out there who buy abortion riders because they figure getting pregnant is no big deal because they can just get abortions? Sounds like a man's way of thinking to me.

                It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

                by AtlantaJan on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:15:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why would a woman buy any kind of insurance? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  martydd, LibrErica, Gravis

                  Do you foresee your house burning down?

                  Someone stealing your car?

                  Getting sick?

                  Someone slipping on your icy sidewalk and suing you?

                  Were I a woman, or if I wasn't "fixed" and my wife past the fertile portion of her life, I'd make sure that our policy covered abortions.

                  15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

                  by BobTrips on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:40:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh. So every women of child-bearing (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    slinkerwink, redwagon

                    age should be forced to buy an abortion rider? Do you have to buy a rider because you think one day you may not be able to get it up?

                    Spare me.

                    It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

                    by AtlantaJan on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:06:46 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Forced? No (0+ / 0-)

                      but if I can't get it up some day, I'll open my fucking wallet and PAY for it. Wow..imagine that..paying for something medically related. I've only been doing that my whole LIFE.

                      Spare me. There are no free lunches. Pay your bills and stop expecting something for free.

                    •  No... (0+ / 0-)

                      If you want to pass on abortion coverage that's up to you.

                      There's nothing in the health bill or Stupak amendment that forces women to buy abortion coverage.

                      15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

                      by BobTrips on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:22:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course you do. That's what insurance does. (0+ / 0-)

                    You don't know if it's going to happen to you, but you have financial protection if the odds go against you and it does happen. Just not for this. And the need for this is one of those things that does not creep up on you for years, but suddenly appears. Exactly what insurance is for. That's why it has to be equal.

                    •  It would be good if it were equal... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LibrErica

                      But it's not likely to be this time around.

                      Reality is, too many voters oppose federally funded abortions.

                      I understand being upset because facts are what they are.

                      I do not understand the calls to kill the bill over this issue.  Too many benefit.

                      And I am dismayed by the incorrect "stuff" that has been said about the bill and amendment.  

                      15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

                      by BobTrips on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:29:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This is one where passions run very high in (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bay of arizona, arlene, BobTrips

                        some places, and even some diarists and commenters I respect have been even angrier than I am. I've learned new words that I should not repeat to my children. And there are a lot of folk who have posted unfortunate things of the 'shrug off the anger,' 'suck it up and get with the program' variety, or 'they were always poor anyway' variety,  or the every popular 'Planned Parenthood will take care of this problem,' and 'do what we want, we'll fix it for you later" when no 'later' with realism to it has been suggested, which just stirs the pots on this one. But the numbers, and I am a sinner as to one of them, are all over the lot in accuracy or want thereof, and can go viral. Because they are analyzed differently, depend on reporting of an event many are too ashamed or afraid of retribution by others to report and similar reasons, and there are no numbers on unofficial procedures at all. And the effect of the amendment depends on who you are listening to, will it ban contraceptives that wingnuts also treat as abortions, does this mean any insurance deduction on your IRS form, because it involves a form of Federal tax credit and so your policy is covered by the ban, and similar. Matters who which answers will not appear in a realistic enough time frame to get answers to when it might help. Do the ones pushing the bigger bill along understand that the effect of this might ban contraceptives and what would they do if it did?

                        The question of 'too many benefits' to kill the bill over this is especially difficult, since a single not even slightly abstract part of the nation is being required to accept differential and secondary insurance which another part is not likewise required to accept. And there is no exception for the health of the mother. I have said it reminds me of the Shirley Jackson story The Lottery, one called to die so that the rest of the village may live, being OK to the narrator until the identity of the one called to die touches the narrator (I remember it as being the narrator) who was then not so thrilled about it all.

                        Would you take the same position if the provisiona nd the sacrifice required for the good of others was coming out of you, specifically?

                        •  Would I? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LibrErica

                          Yes.  I've done that throughout my life and with no complaint.  I realize that I've had my turn at the front of the line quite often being a white male and I appreciate what I've received through nothing that I've done, but due only to an accident of birth.

                          For example, coming out of graduate school at a time when university positions were tight I found my self ineligible for a faculty opening at US Santa Cruz as it was reserved for a woman.  I really wanted to get into the UC system and this was one of only two major university positions in the country with openings in my specialty.

                          But let's go back to Stupak...

                          And the effect of the amendment depends on who you are listening to, will it ban contraceptives that wingnuts also treat as abortions, does this mean any insurance deduction on your IRS form, because it involves a form of Federal tax credit and so your policy is covered by the ban, and similar....

                          The problem I've had on all this is the people who were shouting their opinion without bothering to check the facts.

                          If you read the amendment it is very specific.  There is no language about changing the right to choose, about birth control, about tax consequences for those who purchase their own insurance, etc.

                          It is, as far as I can see, simply a restatement of the Hyde amendment, which is already in effect and would have accomplished the very same thing.

                          I see Stupak as a butt-coverer for Democratic Reps coming from strong anti-choice districts.  Nothing more, because it does nothing except restate facts on the ground.

                          In the same way, amending the bill to say in different language that illegal aliens are not eligible is just damping down a fire because they were already not eligible, but said in words that concerned people weren't reading.

                          Now, I can understand why women are angry about how others (men and women) try to control their bodies.  I certainly don't agree with people who want to ban legal abortion, but I can understand that they exist.

                          We have to share a nation with them.  They have votes.  I see Stupak as a somewhat stinky few paragraphs that turns down the opposition a bit while doing no actual harm.  

                          No one has lost anything with this bill and amendment.  (Except there is a cap on insurance company profit, so I guess they lost something.)

                          But I think this site and the Democratic party have lost something via the irrational attacks on the people we have elected to represent and lead us.

                          And I don't limit my criticism to the Stupak amendment.  I think we've done the same thing with Pelosi not impeaching Bush, with taking comments of Sebelius and Rahm out of context, in accusing Reid of having no spine, ....

                          We incorrectly attack our own and we do it at our peril.  

                          When we incorrectly attack those on our side we deflate our willingness to work for progress.

                          15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

                          by BobTrips on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:06:20 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Why would you buy flood insurance? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  redwagon, OSCPJ

                  Sure a flood is a remote possibility depending on where you live, but it's a possibility that can be a catastrophe. Same w/ abortion.

              •  Exactly..they've lost NOTHING they had (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BobTrips, OSCPJ

                This isn't taking away something from people who have had it before anyway. Poor women have been screwed in the past and would continue to be screwed. Middle class and rich people have had to pay out of pocket for procedures, medications, on down the list.

                •  I would lose it. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bay of arizona

                  If one woman used funds to buy the health plan I have, the plan would stop providing coverage for abortion. That mean abortifacts. That means IUDs, most forms of the pills. It would NOT cover an abortion if a woman has cancer. She would have to choose between chemo while coming to term and no chemo. Stupak is VERY clear about that intent: deformed fetus is no reason to abort even if the life of any resulting term (should it happen) child would be minutes.

                  And my provider is a monopoly in my town.

                  So either

                  1. no addition women in my town get health care
                  1. I lose my coverage.

                  Pig idiot.

                  •  Ahhh, another issue raises its ugly head. When is (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bay of arizona

                    a procedure  or prescription an "abortion."  Many of the anti woman activists take the position that use of the common contraceptives that women use in fact produce 'abortions' such as the day after pill and the daily contraceptives which interfere with the fertilized ovum implanting in the uterus, because they first start to work after egg has met something unfortunate. If that position prevails in the regulation writing as also constituting an 'abortion' all that is also barred.  See the government and insurance bureaucrats start writing regulations. See one of them sitting there evaluating every claim and request for service before it is granted. See if suddenly birth control methods become abortions and are also barred. Except rubbers, of course and perhaps diaphragms. Not the reliable methods. So that is also in danger here. Although (sigh) it may create new jobs.

                  •  that's just so wildly ridiculous that... (0+ / 0-)

                    it's impossible to respond.

                •  See my comment above about why saying they (0+ / 0-)

                  have lost nothing because they didn't have it before is not true. I'm not tying it fifty two times.

                •  if you disregard 1973 - 1976 (0+ / 0-)

                  then your comment is correct.

                  _______________

                  Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

                  by dadanation on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:08:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Wrongo. I may not agree with some of the (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink, bay of arizona, arlene

                absolutists here, but I know a wrong answer when I see it. It is not doing no harm because the woman couldn't afford to buy coverage before. Under this bill she can, but not this coverage. It is a permanent hole in what was supposed to make available for all Americans accessible and affordable coverage. No man has a hole like this one in his coverage, so all the woman can ever get if this goes through is lesser and second class coverage. To say she has no coverage before is to say nothing, because neither she nor a man in the same financial position had coverage, and now  if it goes through, he has complete coverage and she does not.

                As many times as I have typed in the request here, no one has ever identified a single insurance company which presently offers or plans to offer the supplemental policy which the ninnies pushing Stupak claim will rescue women, your ten dollar policy. Until I see such policies, I choose not to believe they exist. If they do not now, it is economically not in the interest of the insurors to offer a minority policy, one not involving men, when they can offer a uniform policy at a uniform price, unless they see a market so far none of them has suggested they see. Show me one, please.

            •  Wow you just don't get it (0+ / 0-)

              Not subsidizing != not available at all. There are always financial options except for the poorest among us who have never been able to afford them anyway!

            •  Thank you Angry Mouse (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slinkerwink, martydd

              You have shown grace and patience in dealing with these idiot pigs who are talking about counting the corpses and picking a number at which choosing death does not matter.

              Thank you for your patience with those advocating deadly policies. I bow to you.

      •   What a woman loses if it passes is the right for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        arlene

        a woman with the same money as a man to buy a complete policy. All she can ever buy is one which for her deletes a periodically material procedure for a woman which no man will ever need for himself, when nothing is deleted from a man's policy. It will always be a second class policy, because of the hole, no matter what you think about the reason for the hole. Nor can a family buy it if that family includes a woman. Nor can a woman buy coverage through that procedure through her employer's plan unless she is rich enough that she needs no credit or other aid in the plan to pay for her premium, or she can pay a supplemental if there is one and if her employer will find a way to get such supplementals from his insurance carrier that are elective for individual employees.

        All insurance is an agreement to provide for coverage in the event that something occurs medically which may or may not happen to a particular person, and insurance is the traditional way to protect an individual against such maybe and maybe not risk. Except this one. For this one, the purpose of the amendment is to preclude any sort of contingent risk evaluation  and protection for a woman of the same sort than men get to make. Especially as there is no guarantee that the supplemental risk policy for this procedure alone, or an Exchange policy limited to full private payers including this procedure will be offered in addition to policies excluding it.

        So much work was done here to make the premiums not skewed on the basis of gender, but then here comes this issue, and a specific and very legal procedure which women make choices about is cut out. She can never buy a complete policy on the P.O. In the private sector of the exchange she probably cannot buy one either unless those never-magnanamous insurors elect to offer one, and then she cannot buy it unless she is rich enough either to use only private money to buy the policy if one is offered, or unless she buys one of the second-class policies and buys or tries at additional expense to buy a second, supplemental policy covering the risk of the need for this procedure and no other occurring.

        It would be like Social Security providing expressly that a surviving spounse gets x percent survivors benefits if a man, and x-y benefits if a woman.

        Secondly, in a time when people are pushing HCR as something that does not put an insurance company in the room with a person and that person's doctor, this one places in the room between a woman but not a man, and her doctor a government regulator and bureaucrat who gets to vet whether a procedure she and her doctor think she needs is within or without the exceptions here, with all the delay and attendant health risk that provides. This is also an exception to government intrusion and takeover of health care howls, because in this one thing, the sponsors want the government right in the middle of this, making the decision about the availability of the exceptions.

        If we believe the scary guys, a hospital is also placed in the position of having to evaluate her insurance and consult the same regulator in order to make sure it is not violating this prohibition by giving her the procedure she and her doctor agree she needs to have, and risking its own funding in so doing.

        She also loses the benefit of the Rule of One. Once one hole in equal coverage is approved, it is more likely that by reason of that precedent, other holes will also be created. The first one is always the hardest to create.

    •  By my calculation (5+ / 0-)

      "only" about 160,000 per year.

      So, what's the problem

      /snark (natch)

  •  Well, we know our nation's priorities, don't we? (8+ / 0-)

    We need tax cuts to protect the top 1%, but health care that covers "only" 13% doesn't matter anyway.

    Got it.

    I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:35:39 PM PST

    •  The top 1% have gained massive wealth (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angie in WA State, shiobhan

      Ever since Reagan was elected. I am hoping the 2008 election was the beginning of the end of the Reagan corporate era. But time will tell. I saw interview with Kevin Phillips just after the election. He did say the biggest risk for Democrats is they will go towards socialism, but it will be mostly socialism for the rich. That would destroy the party..Well, the Wall Street bailout was a socialism for the rich. Thus far there hasn't been much for the average guy..

      Economic Left/Right: -8.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

      by joedemocrat on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:49:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is the part that just drives me nuts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joedemocrat

    We had an option to vote on a weaker version on Stupak's amendment and the pro-choice Members rejected it to...get rolled on a stronger version?  I really hope there was a strategy to this idea.

    Stupak put forward a final compromise to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that would have prohibited abortion coverage in the public plan but would have allowed an annual vote on the abortion ban for the private plans. Pro-choice Democrats rejected this, and the stronger version of Stupak's proposal then passed.

    •  I had read that too... (0+ / 0-)

      in one of the major newspapers..can't remember the one..Washington Post or something..

      That's something I don't understand either. Maybe they believed it would get removed totally in the conference committee and there was no need for a compromise..Also, the congress will be even less Democratic in 2010 (most likely) so maybe that's why..if voted on annually they feared worse..I'm not able to say..

      Economic Left/Right: -8.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28

      by joedemocrat on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:44:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My only guess (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joedemocrat

        Is that they hope its enough of an overreach to not have it happen in the Senate then you'd have a conference where they would have to meet in the middle on a harsh bill and weak bill.

        •  Hyde Amendment has been renewed for 30 years (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          redwagon, arlene

          Every single year.  Maybe the pro-choice folks figured this was giving away the store.  It would have provided even more cover for people to vote for it, and there's no reason to think it would ever be overturned.  As is very evident from the comments here, even those considered liberal don't have a problem with more restrictions on this medical procedure.

          It's worth noting that many of us were thinking that with a Democratic President, Senate, and House, maybe we would finally be able to get rid of the Hyde Amendment.

          I was expecting to see a widening of abortion rights and accessibility, not this setback in the name of "healthcare reform".

          Those in this thread who are debating the minutiae of exactly how many women may be imapacted are missing the forest for the trees. This affects all women by establishing Hyde as the "liberal" position from now on.  

          •  How many has Hyde affected? (0+ / 0-)

            Curious because I know many states kind of "override" Hyde by providing their own funds for poor women's abortions. Also, those states that do tend to be the ones with more access to abortion clinics.

    •  A weaker version would still be unacceptable. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryru

      Nancy should have told Stupak and the anti-choice Dems to shove it up their ass.  That's what she should have done.  And she should have let them know that if they refused to vote for the bill, on the grounds that it didn't restrict women's health care, she'd make sure they could never get elected dog catcher, let alone keep their House seats.

      That's what I would have liked to see.

      I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:50:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  unacceptable or not ... (0+ / 0-)

        our representatives who have been so clear in their response to the Stupak amendment may have voted against the amendment, but they voted for the final bill.  When push comes to shove, they will vote for the conference bill whether it contains the Stupack language or not.

        I will guess that leaving the Stupak language out of the final bill will lose enough votes in the house to "kill the bill".

        The real question is, are we prepared to give up on the bill if the language is not corrected?

        Send your college kid a little love www.gfhshop.com

        by graybeard on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:30:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  but how could she? (0+ / 0-)

        seriously, one has to look a bit more at the fact that pelosi was sabotaged by members of her own caucus, who extorted the stupak amendment for consideration.

        had there been no stupak amendment, the fundamentalist democratic reps would have torpedoed the bill.  it would have failed.

        knowing pelosi's commitment to choice, the fact that the cabal of religious extremists in the house (both dem and rep) who forced THIS issue onto the bill to kill health care reform and decimate pelosi's speaker-ship can not be overstated.

        _______________

        Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

        by dadanation on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:28:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Please type out what the 'weaker' position was. (0+ / 0-)

      Long asked by me and never seen, no matter how many of these threads and how many articles referring to it I have read.

  •  The RNC's own health care plan? Covers abortion. (4+ / 0-)

    In case anyone had any doubt about the GOP leadership's hypocrisy:

    http://www.politico.com/...

    "Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends." -- George Bernard Shaw

    by Hudson on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:39:50 PM PST

  •  Let us be clear (9+ / 0-)

    No $$ will mean more dead women.  Period.

    "Let reverence for the laws . . . become the political religion of the nation." ~ Abraham Lincoln

    by noweasels on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:41:34 PM PST

  •  This is the point (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, maryru

    tha Slink was trying to make earlier today, but couldn't get some thick-headed oafs to get their heads out of their asses long enough to understand. Frankly, they didn't WANT to understand.

    In the words of my wingnut co-worker, "I'll believe what I want to believe".  Or, what is convenient to believe.

  •  Pelosi (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bay of arizona, shiobhan

    Her proudest moment could easily become the low point of her career.  Sometimes people have tunnel vision--only see the goal of the moment.  For this reason, I feel sorry for her--I would hope she'd like to have a do over.  She should have told those insisting on this amendment that their seniority was in imminent danger--and then "demote" Stupak.

    •  she was blindsided not by the republicans (0+ / 0-)

      but by the religious extremists in her own caucus.

      either they got the vote on stupak or the entire bill would go down in flames.

      imagine the kidney punch that was, to find members of your own caucus working with the do-nothing republicans to derail the bill.

      a do-over?

      no do-over could have staved off this act of rebellion and insurrection .

      _______________

      Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

      by dadanation on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:17:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  D&C's are also sometimes done (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AtlantaJan, maryru

    post miscarriage if the dead fetus is not cleared naturally. =

    are they really wanting to draw a line that would have condemend my wanting to have children wife to infertility and a grave risk of cancer if we couldn't have paid out of pocket for that?  

    blind guides, vipers....

    Join Soulforce-seeking Justice for God's GLBT children.

    by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 06:52:03 PM PST

  •  A workable solution (0+ / 0-)

    I don't understand why this is so difficult wouldn't it make more sense to require insurance companies that offer abortion coverage in their plan to breakout their premiums - X dollars are the premium for abortion coverage and Y dollars the premium for all other coverage as part of their plan. When calculating subsidies only the Y dollar amounts would be used. Simple Easy-Peasy.

  •  Something that makes it harder still: (0+ / 0-)

    Some abortions are designated to be, for example, mere D&Cs allegedly not related to pregnancy. Other abortions used to be designated using the old trick of inserting an IUD "for birth control" and calling it precisely that, even when it's really a hidden way of doing an abortion. Etc., etc. It makes the number of procedures even harder to quantify.

    Maxie Baucus took an axe, gave Single Payer 40 whacks. And when he saw what he had done, gave Public Option 41. (NO, Max! Bad Senator!)

    by SciMathGuy on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:11:10 PM PST

  •  Well getting rid of the amendment won't be enough (0+ / 0-)

    Medicaid will be expanding eligibility to 150% of poverty level. The women with lowest income, who can least afford to pay for an abortion... would only be covered for rape, incest, life of mother.
    Those of us with higher income would be covered...but most of us could afford to pay the few hundred dollars or we have a credit card. Most of us will never need an abortion, few of us will get more than 1 or two in a lifetime. Most of us would be OK.

    The ones without the cash or credit will not be covered, amendment or not, if the plan to put them on Medicaid goes through.

    U have been looking at this federal insurance/health care and abortion. Disabled women on Medicare have same restricted coverage...despite the effect it might have on their health or the difficulty they might have caring for a child.

    A federal employee said they don't have a choice to get abortion coverage so I looked that up and found this about those employees (including Congress) and also the military. The military is shocking.

    Every year since 1995, Congress has passed a spending bill that contains language barring federal employees from choosing a health plan that provides insurance coverage for abortion.  The only exception is when the life of the woman would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes, H.R.J. Res. 102, 109th Cong. (2006) (signed by President Bush); Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, The District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2396 (2005).

    Retired and current military personnel and their dependents are also prohibited from obtaining coverage for abortion care through military health plans, even if a pregnancy resulted from an act of rape or incest.  The plans only allow a narrow exception for abortion coverage where the life of the woman would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term.

    A raped soldier would not have abortion covered? Why the hell do they have the tightest restrictions?

    I get Hyde amendment but that is another man made law and it is banning payment for the women who must struggle most, those on Medicaid. The military care is government funded too (which doesn't explain the wretched restrictions)

    But with medicare women pay in all of their working life, pay premiums of about $100 month for medicare and often more than that for medi-gap...but their own money doesn't get them covered, not even through the private medi-gap.
    Federal employees pay some premiums although the government payys most of it. Still they are restricted as we'd be with the dumb amendment.

    This doesn't have to change out fight but it should change our thoughts and our language. We might want to remember our sisters who are even needier or at least as 'deserving'...and with some self pay funds involved.

    hat do we have to say about the many who will be pushed on to Medicaid bu reform and can least afford to pay?
    and so on...
    They are at least consistent. This might be pushing Hyde but not for the first time. We're asking or demanding to be the exception...

    Many wrongs don't make a right but can we explain how we are righter? Can we argue for us without arguing for them? I don't know, haven't been able to wrap my mind around this.
    And...that this will cause death...probably not. Again getting rid of the amendment won't help the ones who really might not be able to pay...

    Boy I can't get over that military coverage restrictions. Even incest and rape not covered???

  •  The numbers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryru, arlene

    These are the abortion numbers:

    Unmarried women obtain two-thirds of all abortions; 60 percent of women getting abortions already have one or more children.
    The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women)
    Eighty-seven percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2005; 35% of women live in those counties.

    The latest argument by the right is that abortion kills future workers, and we have a lack of workers in this country. That assumes that all aborted fetuses would grow up to be productive citizens. The statistics don't bear this out. Babies born to unmarried women and poor women are much more likely to end up being poor themselves. Not to mention being on welfare or, at the very least, criminals. These are not children who have the advantages of education and family love that would make them productive citizens. They are much more likely to be uncared for, unwanted children. (Don't flame me; of course, there are exceptions, but the exception proves the rule.)

    I am pro-choice because I believe that this decision is one that is best left to the woman. But if the anti-choice people had their way there would be a lot more babies born to mothers who didn't want them and couldn't care for them properly. And those children would not grow up to be the kind of citizens that the right wing thinks this country should be made up of. And those women would be trapped in a cycle of poverty, which is, after all, what they really want. Women terrify them.

    Unfortunately, the right's hatred of abortion is more a fear of the capability of women than a well-thought-out philosophy.

    It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson

    by AtlantaJan on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 07:41:54 PM PST

  •  No, the stats don't lie (0+ / 0-)

    If only 13% of abortions were billed to insurance companies, then obviously 87% of women are getting along just fine. You might hate that, but it's reality.

    It's also reality that not subsidizing something is not equivalent to denying access or legally banning or denying rights or anything of the sort.

    Poor women's access has sucked all along and will continue to suck under the amendment. At worst it's neutral to these women.

    Middle class women can do what everyone else does with every other bill: put it on a credit card, borrow money from a friend or family member, pay the bill down over time, and so forth.

    Bottom line: Getting billed for a medical procedure is hardly equivalent to losing a right.

    •  And poor women (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      martydd

      Who cannot afford a child, well screw them right Gravis?

      Let them eat the other children if they are hungry.

      An abortion is >$350. One dollar is provided for one meal with food stamps.

      So poor women just need to not feed their children for 350 meals.

    •  I don't know where the citation is, but one of (0+ / 0-)

      those I read is that the government elected not to keep track of unofficial abortions.

      A summary of my arguement above about your 'neutral' argument. It ain't. In this plan poor people are, must be, covered for the first time. For men, there are no exceptions of any kind. For women there is this one. So that poor men who get insurance can literally get whatever they need but poor women cannot if this is what they think they need - a doughnut hole in their coverage. It would be equal under your theory if nobody had coverage for anything, but that is not the paradigm of this HCR. And once you have coverage for a new class of people, you don't create first class coverage for men, no exceptions, and second class for women, this one.

  •  I hope you don't believe the facts (0+ / 0-)

    will stop this from being quoted?  We are talking about the same folks who still say everyone will be REQUIRED to us a public OPTION and use Lewin Group stats saying 100 million will use the PO which off by a factor of 20.

    Logic and facts are meaningless.

    However, thanks for the information.

    "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

    by justmy2 on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:10:07 PM PST

  •  Public Funded Abortions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redwagon, arlene, OSCPJ

    Public funding of abortions is just good policy. Very few people get medical treatments on a whim, and those that do generally have plenty of money to pay for them. If someone feels they need an abortion, I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's very unlikely they are doing it for fun.

    The most common reason cited by politicians in opposing abortions seems to be that someone might object to their tax dollars being spent for something they consider immoral. Boy, would I like to get back all the tax money Washington has scooped up out of my bank account for the many things they do that I consider immoral!

    Whether people object to the way the money is spent is irrelevant. What matters is that there is a huge need for people to have access to abortions at an affordable rate. Providing abortion funding for poor women is social justice. It's necessary at least until we pay people at the bottom of the social ladder enough that they can afford their own.

    •  I say use a condom, it's cheaper. (0+ / 0-)

      If you don't want to use one, then pay for it one your own dime.

      Or don't accept a dime from the taxpayers.  

      I think you are owed absolutely nothing from the govt.  To expect HC and then anything else is silly.

      Sadly, I approve of Abortion.  I approve more of everyone being able to work hard, plan and pay their own share.  

      •  no roads, no postal delivery (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        martydd, notrouble, csquared

        is that where you are going with this comment?

        the government does owe its citizenry an awful lot, and that "awful lot" is paid to the government to provide a myriad of such services to its citizens (paid by way of taxes).

        _______________

        Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

        by dadanation on Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 10:13:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't put words in my mouth and then attack me (0+ / 0-)

          on what you perceive.

          Less than half pay taxes after deductions and "Refundable Refunds".  But yet all want to dictate what they think is owed to them.  

          I could care less about postal delivery.  I know that Fed Ex or UPS could service better than them and cheaper.  The USPS is subsidized and rules are in place to protect them.

          Defense, Education, Critical Infrastructure, Foreign Policy and simply and limited laws.  

          I don't think having others pay for your abortion ranks up there with these.  

          I don't think the govt owes it's citizenry very much.  I think the citizens owe the nation.  How many people actually contribute to the above mention areas?  I believe in mandatory service for two years before you vote.  I think you shouldn't be born in America and think you are owed everything in the world.  That is not what this country is built on.  

          •  how about some data? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RunawayRose

            you are full of all sorts of assertions yet you proffer not one whit of evidence.

            frankly, you are entitlerd to your own opinion -- but you are not entitled here to pass it off as if it were truth without at the very least providing corroboration.

            cite me the data that show:

            Less than half pay taxes after deductions and "Refundable Refunds".  But yet all want to dictate what they think is owed to them.  

            i note that you do not have Public Health listed among your litany.

            so,which of these following categories are you opposed to having the federal government fund?

            Defense and security

            Social Security

            Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP

            Safety net programs

            Interest on debt

            Benefits for federal retirees and veterans

            Education

            Scientific and medical research

            Transportation

            Non-security international

            i would point out that 2005 data regarding the safety net programs of the federal budget -- which account for about 11% of the federal budget -- indicate that these programs "...lifted more than 12 million Americans out of poverty in 2005 and reduced the depth of poverty for another 25 million people."

            and for the record we are not talking about "my abortion."  what we are discussing is the extent to which new legislation will further restrict poor women and poor women only from access to a constitutionally-guaranteed procedure (since poverty is a criteria that determines eligibility for Medicaid).

            or is it simply that you do not support Medicare or Medicaid or S-CHIP or SSDI or SSI or LIHEAP or CDC or HRSA or NIH or Food Stamps?

            _______________

            Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

            by dadanation on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 09:55:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  GAO report enough of Facts? (0+ / 0-)

              you are full of all sorts of assertions yet you proffer not one whit of evidence.

              frankly, you are entitlerd to your own opinion -- but you are not entitled here to pass it off as if it were truth without at the very least providing corroboration.

              cite me the data that show:

              Assertions might be your opinion.  Failure to provide facts is my failure (Had to work today, again).

              http://www.gao.gov/...

              Page 37 from the GAO report.  You know the Government Accountability Office ICW the Internal Revenue Service report on 2004.  

              The lower 60 percent have a total of 2.6% of all Individual Income Tax.  The lower 40 percent actually have a negative 2.8% share of the income tax.  (The get money back without putting in).  Add Mr. Obama's "Refundable Rebate" meaning you get the money even if you did not pay in and it would bring a larger share of people not paying.

              i note that you do not have Public Health listed among your litany.

              I understand the word, just not the importance of your need for validation.  Plus I just joined and haven't looked for that function.  If it is important to you I will update it if you help me with the knowledge to do so.

              •  from your link: (0+ / 0-)

                page 29:

                In contrast to the ability to pay principle, the benefits received principle states that the amount of tax paid should be directly related to the benefits that a taxpayer receives from the government. In practice, the benefits received principle requires the government to identify who benefits from specific government services. As a result, the benefits received principle is usually not applicable when considering government programs intended to provide societywide benefits or redistribute wealth.

                so again,i ask you, is public health something you believe the federal government should or should not support with our tax dollars in the same fashion that you believe the military IS something you believe should be thusly supported?

                _______________

                Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

                by dadanation on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 04:46:55 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I oppose these programs. (0+ / 0-)

              I oppose Safety net programs.  When you pay in more than you get out or get more out than you pay, that is not a Safety Net.  It is redistribution.  I would rather you a portion of my money and gave it to the poor people.  No allusion that the Govt can provide better for me than I can by taking money and then returning a fraction when I get older.  The problem is that this is just a huge loan for the government.  A Ponzi Scheme.

              I oppose OASDI.  At 37, I am not planning on SS.  I would opt out today and elect to receive nothing if I could.  The govt wants to tell me they are helping me out by me paying in a sum of money and receiving less later in life.  How about if I just deposit it in the bank.  Do you really believe the govt is better at looking out for you than you?

              I like SCHIP, but once again, I don't like the Federal Govt unfunded mandates.  The State has to pick this up.  I think kids are the victems.  

              I don't agree with Federal Funding of Education.  I believe this is a state issue.  Even a county issue.  If the schools were allowed to compete against each other and you could choose would be my best scenerio.  The Dept of Education gets 60B a year.  What exactly do they do?  They don't teach a single Child.  I don't agree with Tenure and believe in Pay for Performance.  "No Child Left Behind" equates to "All Children Left behind" because they don't allow kids to fail, meaning the class is not allowed to succede.  (Yeah, I'm shallow, I also believe when the kids play TBall the score shouldn't always be a tie and the kids should be out)

              At the end of the day I think everyone can work hard and succeed in America.  As soon as you think otherwise you are beat.  Ever wonder why so many immigrants come here and then work long hard hours?  Because nothing is free for them where they came from.

              •  we have absolutely nothing to discuss then (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Liberal Thinking

                that you would support a regressive policy, one that would undo the work of LBJ's "The Great Society" means there is no middle ground we can find agreement.

                your solution to the issues of poverty and institutionalized oppression is simply "work harder?"  

                that is beyond cruel and beyond reproach.

                _______________

                Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

                by dadanation on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 04:49:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Social Security is insurance (0+ / 0-)

                and as with all insurance you don't necessarily get back what you put in. Some people get more and some less. But they all got the benefit of being insured for disability and for destitution in old age.

                Without Social Security, everyone would have to have a nest egg large enough to last them until age 120, just in case they should live that long. Try and price a commercial annuity that will pay you an inflation-adjusted benefit for 55 years equal to your Social Security benefit - if such a thing exists. And then price disability insurance and survivor benefits on top of that. Good luck affording them.

                "There -- it's -- you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --GWB

                by denise b on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 05:02:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  The Constitution? (0+ / 0-)

              i would point out that 2005 data regarding the safety net programs of the federal budget -- which account for about 11% of the federal budget -- indicate that these programs "...lifted more than 12 million Americans out of poverty in 2005 and reduced the depth of poverty for another 25 million people."

              Don't forget the State programs.  And isn't this just taking money from one to give another.  Wouldn't doing that directly save money by eliminating programs and bureaucracy?  

              what we are discussing is the extent to which new legislation will further restrict poor women and poor women only from access to a constitutionally-guaranteed procedure (since poverty is a criteria that determines eligibility for Medicaid).

              I don't understand your arguement about constitutionally-guaranteed procedure.  Those that are covered under Medicaid are still covered.  The Hyde Amendment makes a change to that benefit.  BTW Medicaid is not covered by the Constitution, but was created on the 30th of July, 1965 through Title 12 of the Social Security Act.  Medicaid is mandated by the Federal Government while the states pick up a huge part of the tab.  

              Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

              Might have to change this after your fact about the Constitution......

              Correct me if I am wrong.  Medicare pays for Abortions only under certain conditions like rape.  The HC bill has the same provisions.  Right or wrong?  

              I see the Progressive view that all are created equal and should be given the same opportunities.  I agree with opportunities.  I also agree that only children are victims of being poor.  Every adult has the ability to work and contribute to society.  They also have the ability to be successful in life.  The trick is to get people to realize this and work towards this.

              •  excuse me (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Liberal Thinking

                but in roe v wade the SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of a woman's right to access an abortion.

                the hyde amendment came three years later.

                your "every adult has the ability to work..."is an affront to not just those who can not find employment but to those of us who have become or who are permanently disabled.

                _______________

                Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

                by dadanation on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 04:51:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Going Nowhere (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dadanation

                  I don't think you'll get anywhere with OSCPJ. Some people just assume everyone gets an equal shot at life and when they fail it's on their own shoulders.

                  The truth is that the system is rigged so that the rich get richer. If you went to a casino, would you expect to beat the house? Not if you understand that casinos have a built-in percentage they take on every transaction.

                  It's the same with the rich. Every dollar spent is divided up between owners (in profits) and workers (in wages). That's the "house percentage" for the rich. They are going to get their percentage on every transaction.

                  Most people think of this percentage the way they think of annual interest rates. There's a huge difference between an annual percentage of, say, 5%, and a 5% cut on each transaction. You can have thousands of transactions a year. If you borrow money at 5% annual interest then you have some hope of earning enough to pay that back. If you let someone take 5% on each transaction, you can be broke in an evening.

                  That's why a flat tax on income is such a loser. You have to have a progressive tax just to keep the economy going, because otherwise all the money just pools at the top. Look what happened with the Bush tax cuts. That very small percentage change effectively bankrupted the economy by sucking all the money out of it. If the Democrats hadn't instituted a progressive tax back in the early 20th century, we never would have had a middle class or a modern economy. Money would have continued to pool at the top and we would have been a third-world country right up to now.

                  Some just want us to go back to that third-world status.

                  •  it's not just HOW they think here (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Liberal Thinking

                    it is moreover WHAT they think here that is so reprehensible.  to want to see the safety net programs go away is a position that belies an individual who lacks empathy, compassion, and, dare i say it, a soul.

                    the rich get richer and the poor get whatever crumbs are left out of noblesse oblige or luck or hard, hard work or happenstance.  it sucks the way this person so wholesale condescends and condemns individuals and families to a fate this person believes is a consequence of their failings (not working hard enough, not taking enough responsibility, etc.).

                    i have read some appalling comments here before, but these fews by OSCP are damn near the ugliest at their core.

                    _______________

                    Don't confuse them with facts. They have stereotypes on their side. (rserven)

                    by dadanation on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:12:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Owing or Not (0+ / 0-)

          To me, it's not a question of what the government owes people. It's a question of good public policy. We are not living in some empty wilderness where everyone gets a fair shot at the resource goodies. We live in an advanced technological age where every square inch of land (and most of the water) is owned by someone before we're born and virtually all of our environment is determined by society, not nature. At some point we have to understand that every piece of property we have comes to us by fiat. The land we "own" was carved out of the wilderness by fiat and the rights we have to it are maintained by society, not our own strength of arms. Our ability to create things comes from a money that is money by dint of law. If you don't believe me, go look at your dollar bill. What makes it money is not that it's backed by gold but that it has these fine words:

          This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.

          The insurance industry is a government-run industry. It operates under an anti-trust exemption. The only difference between having it run by federal employees and what we have now is that the service has been outsourced to particularly lousy and greedy public servants.

          The question is not what the government owes us or what we owe the government, but rather how are we going to manage this totally artificial society that we inherited from our ancestors. Got any clues? I suggest we start with in-sourcing healthcare and saving ourselves a boatload of money. And, as a part of normal healthcare, let's just go ahead and pay for abortions because society needs us to do that and it's good public policy.

      •  Try Again (0+ / 0-)

        Go look up the statistics on condoms and get back to me if you still think that that will do the trick.

        Of course, I'd prefer that everyone could pay for any abortions they needed. If Congress would raise the minimum wage about $2/hour, perhaps they could be let off for the moment on the Hyde Amendment. It would be a lot lower priority if the minimum wage were somewhere near the living wage.

  •  The POINT of Stupek amendment is...... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arlene

    No FEDERAL dollars shall be used anymore to pay for abortions, not in a public option, not in any plan.

    Now WHO gets Federal dollars towards an abortion?    LOW INCOME women on Medicaid.

    So the hypocrisy is,   you low income women who cannot afford an abortion yourself, must have the baby which the Right Wingers will condemn that they have to support !   Have to pay for the delivery.   Have to pay for the food stamps.    Have to feed and give school lunches to.    

    As the Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank said: "For Republicans, life begins at conception and ends at birth."

    If this gets passed, let's watch the numbers of those seeking Welfare aid.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site