I've also enclosed a transcript for those below who are unable to understand my deaf speech, so please go below the jump to read the transcript.
Hi, I’d like to talk to you about why I oppose the Stupak and the Nelson amendments being added to the health insurance bill. I’ll start on how this entire process happened in the House. When the House bill was being brought up for a vote, Bart Stupak threatened to block the passage of the bill because he said he had about 40 members ready to vote against it. Speaker Pelosi believed Stupak’s threat, and gave in to him by allowing his amendment to be considered over the amendments that the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus had wanted to be considered on the full House floor for a vote. These caucuses were also told that there’d be a closed rule on the amendment process because of Bart Stupak, and to prevent his amendment from being brought up. That’s what they were told according to Representative Grijalva.
Speaker Pelosi believed Stupak’s threat, and gave in, and the amendment passed with the help of Republicans and several Democrats who also thought the amendment merely reflected the Hyde language and didn’t know how restrictive it was. Representative Diana DeGette of the Pro-Choice Caucus in the House has said that she’s spoken to these Democratic members, and that these Members were surprised to find out that the Stupak language wasn’t what they had thought it to be.
And Senator Nelson saw his chance to screw over women, so he brought up the Stupak language in his own amendment, which failed on a floor vote in the Senate. He, however, threatened not to vote for cloture unless he got in his abortion language, and the White House sent over their two aides, Jim Messina (and Pete Rouse, I think?) to work with Senator Nelson on his abortion language, which allows states to opt out of abortion coverage, and place the equivalent of an abortion rider on a woman’s right to abortion coverage by having her pay two premiums, one for insurance, and the other for the abortion coverage.
I just think it’s ridiculous that this Democratic Party has allowed itself to come to this point in order to get this bill passed for a political win by rolling back a woman’s right to choose. I don’t support that as a progressive. You may consider that being a firebagger, purity trolling, or whatnot, but it’s what I believe and feel to be wrong about this issue. I have this idea that the Democratic Party should hold firm to its party platform, you know? It’s kind of a radical idea, but anyways, that’s what I think on this subject.
I also would like to take this chance to address all the ad hominem attacks of being called a teabagger, a racist, a firebagger, a purity troll, a Obama hater, and other names. I acknowledge I’m not perfect, and I have failed a few times in keeping my cool and I’ve said or rather, written things that I have regretted. I would like to apologize for that. Can we at least acknowledge that being called ad hominem attacks does nothing to advance your argument, and makes it about the person, rather than the policies that the person opposes or supports? If you have a problem with what I say, at least address the policy points I bring up without veering off into that whole weird territory and threatening to run me off the site. I’ve always been a kossack, and I’ve been here longer than most people, and plan on staying. I will not let anyone run me off this site for my views and beliefs.
With that said, I thank you for listening and wish you a happy New Year, and wish safe travels to everyone on Dailykos.
Here's something else I'd like to bring up as a question. What's to prevent conservative Democrats from attaching more restrictive amendments on a woman's right to choose on the next bill, say climate change, EFCA, financial reform, campaign finance reform, and other bills? They've already seen they can get their way in restricting a woman's right to choose as long as those in the Democratic leadership are desperate enough to get that bill passed and are willing to accept amendments like the Stupak and the Nelson amendment in both houses of Congress.
Some people are already saying that the solution is to help pay for women's access to abortions. I don't think that's the right solution and it's an upside-down approach to the problem. How about actually making abortion affordable and accessible to women by NOT passing legislation that restricts the affordability of abortion and access to it? How about repealing the Hyde amendment for starters? Why do we have to let this remain in place and think the solution is to pay for a woman's access to abortion? Why not remove that legislative obstacle to begin with?
It's like the reaction I have when I hear people saying that the Nelson issue will be resolved in the courts since it's unconstitutional. Why do we even have to let it go to a court challenge to begin with? Why do we have to rationalize support for this health bill by thinking it'll be resolved in court? What if the court decides otherwise, and Nelson remains the law of the land regarding insurance coverage of abortions? In my view, that's a huge gamble to take with a woman's reproductive rights by delegating it to some court to rule on.
I also oppose other parts of the bill based on policy differences, such as the punitive nature of the excise tax which Bob Herbert talked about in his column at the New York Times:
Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.
We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This part of the Senate’s health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.
I asked Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., about this. (Labor unions are outraged at the very thought of a health benefits tax.) I had to wait for him to stop laughing to get his answer. "If you believe that," he said, "I have some oceanfront property in southwestern Pennsylvania that I will sell you at a great price."
A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief that nearly all would do so.
The excise tax, unless correctly indexed, will become the equivalent of the AMT patch, and I don't get why policy wonks seem to think that employers will magically give employees more money when they switch over to a cheaper policy that has higher deductibles, co-pays, and fewer benefits. They'll just pocket the money and keep it for themselves. How many of us actually have seen an increase in our wages when our employer switched over to a cheaper policy? This is reminiscent of the "trickle-down" philosophy held by conservatives and neoliberals about Wall Street being good for Main street, instead of the other way around.
And here's an action item for those who are opposed to this Senate health bill because it has an individual mandate and no public option. You can click on this list of progressive House members to call, and since it's recess, I'd suggest you use the district phone numbers when you call their offices.
Use this call-back report form when you CALL!