House Democrats to torpedo final healthcare bill
Greg Sargent reports that progressive House Democrats are vowing to vote No on any final bill that contains the Stupak amendment or anything similar. I would say that they are missing the forest for the trees. They would refuse wider access to healthcare for millions of American simply to protect their ideology. That strikes me as not only petty, but also not terribly progressive.
From the letter:
As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.
However, this is not at all unprecedented. It’s no different than rules governing Medicaid, nor should it be. It would be sad irony if Democrats killed their own bill. Popular opinion suggests they won’t go through with it, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Keep in mind that it was the same Progressive Caucus in the House that threatened to torpedo a House bill if it did not contain the liberal version of the public option. They did not do so – and I don’t believe they will kill health care reform because of the abortion provisions. Frankly, when the Senate gets done with it, even Progressives will find that they have bigger issues to solve.
Agreed, Rick. Sound and fury.
In response to another comment. See in context »There are two main objections to this. First of all, Stupak also supports health care reform, but he’d be willing to deny coverage to millions just so he could deny abortion coverage to the poor. Why hold progressives to a higher standard than you hold Stupak? Secondly, there’s an obvious game theory element to this statement that you’re totally ignoring; it’s not necessarily fair to take legislative bargaining as a definitive statement. You might as well have walked up to JFK in 1962 and accused him of being willing to annihilate all life just to preserve his system of government.
Dan – I addressed the nonsensical notion that this denies abortion to the poor here. It’s no different than the standards for Medicaid – only the recipients of insurance through the exchanges and the public option would be more well off financially than recipients of Medicaid. That logic simply doesn’t hold any water.
In response to another comment. See in context »OK, but even if we set aside the idea of differential access by class, the larger point stands. Why call out pro-choice Dems for being willing to torpedo the bill over abortion, when you don’t call out pro-life Dems for doing the exact same thing?
In response to another comment. See in context »E.D., I have to ask you to do two things:
(1) Read up on this a bit more. It is not equivalent to the Hyde Amendment. That is anti-abortion propaganda and completely false. It effetively prevents most insurance companies from covering abortion, period. Read more, you’ll see. 2) Think again about whether you are really in a position to speak for those on the other side of the issue about whether this is a good compromise for them. At one point, perhaps your view on the health bill were such that you might be able to say this is a decent compromise for a good bill. But then you threw your lot in with Mark Thompson. You are on the record agreeing with him this (H.R. 3200, which is not substantiall different from what has passed) is a horrible bill. Additionally, you are pro-life. (Right?) You’re not in a position to make EITHER of those judgments. The first — ‘this is a good bill’ — you are on the record to the contrary of, and the second — ‘this is a fair compromise for that good bill’ — you are not in a position to judge given that you favor greater restrictions on abortion (unless I am mistaken). This is concern trolling across two dimensions, my friend. I beg you to reconsider this tack. By all means state your support for the Stupak amendment on the merits, and then go over to the League and unambiguously come out in favor of the health bill as it stands. But don’t pose as a fellow-traveller to those who are now legitimately in this wrenching moral-political bind. Just be who you are, man.
Also, don’t be so sure that House liberals at this point wouldn’t happily axe a conference report that both undersubsidizes the mandate and pays for it on the backs of the middle class, AND has the Stupak amendment. The bill likely to come out of the Senate even without Stupak would have been a tough go in the House. I think liberals are sufficiently pissed at Obama at this point that they would have no problem with the consequences of spiking this if they have to make this odious compromise for a bill they would already have had to hold their noses for.
Michael,
Where I am now is – healthcare reform is better than no healthcare reform. Even this bill. I would vote for it if I had the chance, though I would have – if I were a Republican congressman – pushed very hard to incorporate more competition, etc. into the bill first.
Regarding “most insurance companies” not being able to offer abortion coverage – that’s total nonsense. In fact, there will be plans even on the exchanges (which is the only place private insurers will be effected at all) that will offer abortion coverage, only they will be unsubsidized plans. Where did you see anything saying that most private insurers will no longer be able provide abortion coverage? That sounds like fear-mongering rhetoric coming from the pro-choice side to me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Considering that it is the pro-choice side and not your side that has problems with this, I think there is every reason to take their view seriously. If you’re going to dismiss the pro-choice arguments prima facie just because it is pro-choice people who make them, then it doesn’t seem to me you are addressing their arguments at all. Specifically:
It seems to me that the situation you describe — ‘unsublidized plans’ offering abortion coverage — is exactly the compromise that was superceded by Stupak et al on the grounds that money is fungible. The fungibility argument, in any case, is a universal acid. If that is the logical justification, then any company that offers any plan that covers abortion that also insures someone receiving subsidies is therefore being subsidized for covering abortions. The Stupak amendment, in other words, if it doesn’t bar any insurance company participating in the exchange from offering plans that cover abortions, doesn’t pass muster by its own fungibility test.
In response to another comment. See in context »citation for quote: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html
In response to another comment. See in context »“The Stupak amendment, in other words, if it doesn’t bar any insurance company participating in the exchange from offering plans that cover abortions, doesn’t pass muster by its own fungibility test.”
Sorry, that was over-broad. It should have been, “if it doesn’t bar any company that insures subsidy-eligible individuals in the exchange from offering plans that cover abortions, doesn’t pass muster by its own fungibility test.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Here’s another piece exploring the question: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/controversial-stupak-amendment-sows-anger-confusion-on-capitol-hill.php?ref=fpblg
At the very least, it is absolutely fair to say that a) it is uncertain at the very least that plans in the exchange will be effectively prevented from offering abortion coverage, even if it is paid for via out-of-pocket copays, and b) women employed at small companies have very reason to fear losing abortion coverage they already have, because small employers will have an incentive to mover their employees into the exchange in order lighten the burden of providing heath insurance for their workers (that’s part of the very point of this reform, after all).
In response to another comment. See in context »Lastly, E.D. — lastly because if you are going to engage on the subject of abortion, then you cannot refuse to engage pro-choice arguments simply because they are made by pro-choice activists, so I was sure to provide liberal/pro-choice sources first and foremost — lastly here is a link, whose title, “Obamacare Could Ban Abortion,” really couldn’t put it more succinctly, from someone you may be more inclined to listen to, at least on domestic matters: http://www.frumforum.com/obamacare-could-ban-abortion
He includes a closing quip about why this means reform shouldn’t pass, but because you are again for the bill on the grounds that, “health care reform [even this bill] is better than no health care reform,” I’m sure you’ll ignore it. I myself am actually beginning to have my doubts.
In response to another comment. See in context »