Halfway There

[Davian93]

Well, we're halfway there to an America with Death Panels and Debtors Prisons for those that refuse to buy healthcare.;)

Landmark Health Insurance Bill Passes House (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/)



Landmark health insurance bill passes House
Tough fight still ahead in Senate, and two versions have wide differences

WASHINGTON - In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry.

The final vote was 220-215. Only one Republican — Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana — voted for the measure; 39 Democrats voted against it.

Obama praised the House in a statement and said he is "absolutely confident" that the Senate will pass its version of the legislation. "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year," he said.

Passage was an exhilarating triumph for Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who earlier likened the bill to passage of the government's Social Security pension program in 1935 and Medicare health insurance for the elderly 30 years later.

But the Senate has yet to begin floor debate on its own version of insurance reform. That debate may be weeks away, with Senate Democratic leaders still negotiating over the details of their legislation.

If the Senate enacts its bill, conferees from House and Senate would then meet to negotiate a final compromise measure.

That compromise would then need to be voted on by the House and Senate.

So Democratic members from Republican-leaning districts who cast a difficult vote Saturday night for the House bill will face yet another tough vote in several weeks.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.

Federally regulated marketplace
At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

In the runup to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.

The vote added to the Democratic bill an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and others, that prohibits individuals who receive insurance subsidies from purchasing any plan that pays for elective abortions.

House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to allow a floor vote on the Stupak amendment to the bill in order to win the support of about three dozen Democrats who feared that the original bill would have subsidized abortions.

Ironically, the abortion vote only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for the conservative Democrats to vote for it.

A cheer
A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed.'

From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."

Nearly united in opposition to the health care bill, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.

"We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick,'" jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing "a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding" bill.

But with little or no doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer's town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting "death panels" to hasten the demise of senior citizens.

The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance.

To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.

The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear.

Democrats lined up a range of outside groups behind their legislation, none more important than the AARP, whose support promises political cover against the cuts to Medicare in next year's congressional elections.

The nation's drug companies generally support health care overhaul. And while the powerful insurance industry opposed the legislation, it did so quietly, and the result was that Republicans could not count on the type of advertising campaign that might have peeled away skittish Democrats in swing districts.

Campaign Harry Truman began
Overall, the bill envisioned the most sweeping set of changes to the health care system in more than a generation, and Democrats said it marked the culmination of a campaign that Harry Truman began when he sat in the White House 60 years ago.

The compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.

As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.

But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.

Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but appeared to pull back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.

One, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., detailed numerous other benefits for women in the bill, including free medical preventive services and better prescription drug coverage under Medicare. "Women need health care reform," she concluded in remarks on the House floor.

Republicans offered an alternative that relied heavily on loosening regulations on private insurers to reduce costs for those who currently have insurance, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. But congressional budget analysts said the plan would make no dent in the ranks of the uninsured, an assessment that highlighted the difference in priorities between the two political parties.

It fell by a near party line vote of 258-176.

[GonzoTheGreat]

I'm sure the Senate can still cheat you out of getting those Death Panels. They may even add a clause mandating an invasion of Malawi.

[JSUCamel]

I'm sure the Senate can still cheat you out of getting those Death Panels. They may even add a clause mandating an invasion of Malawi.

Nice.

The bill still has to get through the Senate, and it's likely that the Senate will tack on amendments and changes and other things, after which I believe it has to go back to the House for ratification. This could be a very, very long process. "Halfway" is a very optimistic estimate, I think. This could wind up being a very, very long process.

[Sinistrum]

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.

This is the only part of the bill I hope survives to be enacted. Everything else is garbage, for reasons I've previously stated.

The vote added to the Democratic bill an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and others, that prohibits individuals who receive insurance subsidies from purchasing any plan that pays for elective abortions.

This is also something I find interesting. I wonder how this sits with the rest of you guys who are pro-choice. I'm not a fan personally of this provision for many reason above and beyond my stance on abortion.

[GonzoTheGreat]

This is also something I find interesting. I wonder how this sits with the rest of you guys who are pro-choice. I'm not a fan personally of this provision for many reason above and beyond my stance on abortion.I think that's a bad addition. Perhaps even worse than my "let's annex Malawi" one.

[Kurtz]

Kill the Poor - Dead Kennedy's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8OIl9t9hjk)

[Mort]

I heard that the senate has another version of it that needs to be voted on. After that the House and the Senate need to come to terms on what exactly is going into the bill and vote on that... so I think it's about 20 years left still ;)

[Davian93]

Abortion for any but medical reasons (or in the case of rape or incest) is and should be an ELECTIVE surgery. Thus, it shouldn't be covered by any healthcare. You want it (just like plastic surgery) you pay for it.

As a pro-choice person, I have no problem with this.

[Kurtz]

Abortion for any but medical reasons (or in the case of rape or incest) is and should be an ELECTIVE surgery. Thus, it shouldn't be covered by any healthcare. You want it (just like plastic surgery) you pay for it.

As a pro-choice person, I have no problem with this.

That's entirely fair, and what I presumed was in operation in most state healthcare systems.

Ireland isn't encumbered with such frivilous troublements :)

[Sei'taer]

nicely bipartisan vote...just like the head dick in charge wanted. Of course, the bipartisanship was mostly on the opposing side.

PS I still say this bill is fucking bullshit and will continue to say it until all of you agree with me.

[Frenzy]

From the title of this thread, i thought Dav was gonna bust out some vintage Bon Jovi.

i'm sorely disappointed. and out of hairspray.

[Ishara]

Not even addressing the rest of it, but as far as I know, abortions are covered in Canada - at least they are in Ontario. As they should be.

It's hard to call something a right if you're going to disenfranchise someone from exercising said right by making it financially impossible to do so.

[Davian93]

Not even addressing the rest of it, but as far as I know, abortions are covered in Canada - at least they are in Ontario. As they should be.

It's hard to call something a right if you're going to disenfranchise someone from exercising said right by making it financially impossible to do so.

Plastic surgery is your right but its not covered. Its an ELECTIVE surgery in many cases. It would be covered if it was medically necessary but in cases of "convenience", I don't believe it should be covered.

[One Armed Gimp]

Plastic surgery is your right but its not covered. Its an ELECTIVE surgery in many cases. It would be covered if it was medically necessary but in cases of "convenience", I don't believe it should be covered.

You obviously are not truly American or you would understand what wonders "convenience" has brought us. Our society will soon no longer be hinder by such things as necessity, non on-demand services, harsh and out-dated grading techniques in our school systems or the evils of private health insurance and their greedy CEO's. As an example, my 14 year old brother recently brought his interim report card home and I am proud to say that he got 3 checks in "demonstrating", 2 in "developing" and 1 circle.

[Ivhon]

I would hope that Viagra, Cialis, and other such elective drug treatments are similarly not covered.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that they are. Chalk up another win for Big Pharm.

[JSUCamel]

I would hope that Viagra, Cialis, and other such elective drug treatments are similarly not covered.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that they are. Chalk up another win for Big Pharm.

The solution to overpopulation (and, incidentally, abortion) is simple: come up with a pill that makes semen taste like chocolate. (Thank you, Ron White!)

[Sei'taer]

I would hope that Viagra, Cialis, and other such elective drug treatments are similarly not covered.

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that they are. Chalk up another win for Big Pharm.

I like how y'all act like we're going to have a choice anyway. The stupak amendment can be done away with easily and at the last minute. It was just a ploy to get Cao and a few of the blue dogs to go along with the bill.

[JSUCamel]

I like how y'all act like we're going to have a choice anyway. The stupak amendment can be done away with easily and at the last minute. It was just a ploy to get Cao and a few of the blue dogs to go along with the bill.

I wonder if a similar statement was made just prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Davian93]

I wonder if a similar statement was made just prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

LBJ had a big pair of balls and smacked heads together...there was none of this compromise crap that BHO is trying.

[Sinistrum]

Its nice to see that with the exception of maybe Sei, who was pretty non-committal, everyone else missed the point of why the abortion amendment is so troublesome to me. This is a prime example of one of the huge flaws in a government run health care system that I've been harping on since we've discussed this. The government has taken an issue of what treatments are covered, politicized it, and made an arbitrary determination that not only the public option, but also private insurers that receive public funds, will not be able to choose to cover abortions. The damn thing isn't even passed and their already attempting to mandate which procedures won't be covered and which ones will based on nothing more than POLITICS.

[Davian93]

Well, isn't abortion for "birth control" typically an elective surgery anyway? Most elective surgeries aren't covered by a basic healthcare plan anyway. This is no different in my mind than LASIK surgery or a nosejob. I'm sure the bill covers (99% sure I read this) abortions for medical reasons like the health of the mother.

[Sei'taer]

I wonder if a similar statement was made just prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Doubt it. Gore Sr. and the dems were pretty hardcore.

[GonzoTheGreat]

Well, isn't abortion for "birth control" typically an elective surgery anyway? Most elective surgeries aren't covered by a basic healthcare plan anyway. This is no different in my mind than LASIK surgery or a nosejob. I'm sure the bill covers (99% sure I read this) abortions for medical reasons like the health of the mother.Your faith in the sensibility of politicians is touching.
Not warranted or sensible, of course, but definitely touching.

[Sei'taer]

hmmmm


Rep. Clyburn believes Stupak abortion clause will be removed from health bill

The health bill approved by the House will likely see its abortion amendment stripped, the House's third-ranking Democrat stressed Tuesday.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he believes that the amendment restricting federal funding for abortion will eventually be removed during conference with the Senate's bill.

"I think that's what's gonna happen," Clyburn said during an appearance on MSNBC when asked if Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Md.) amendment would be removed.

Clyburn said that he and many other House Democrats supported the amendment to pass the legislation in the House, with the expectation that it would eventually be removed.

"That's certainly why I voted for it," Clyburn explained. "I agree that the language approved by the House is unacceptable. We were doing what was necessary to do to put the bill on the floor in about 12 hours."

House liberals have openly threatened to kill a final health bill if it contains restrictions on abortion like those included in the House's legislation, though it's not clear how removing the provision would affect centrist Democrats' vote on final passage.

Clyburn said that the amendment had been necessary to win only a handful of votes, not the 40-some Democratic vote Stupak had expected to rally against the bill unless it included the abortion amendment.

"It was only 10 or 11 votes; that's the fact," Clyburn asserted. "This language took us across the threshold of 218."

Echoing other Democratic leaders, including President Barack Obama, the third-ranking Democrat in the House said that the bill needs to preserve the status quo on federal funding for abortions, which Clyburn said was represented in the Hyde Amendment.

"As long as this does not go beyond the Hyde Amendment, I think we'll be fine," Clyburn said.

[Ishara]

Okay:

1. The "right" I'm referring to is the right to choose. Period. The whole behind having a choice is that it's elective. I'm not seeing your reasoning here. ALL abortions are elective, regardless of the rationale (D&C for a non-term fetus, rape, incest, busted condom - whatever). In Ontario, we pay for that, and I'm proud to have that be the case. And the argument that it shouldn't be covered for those cases where it's "birth control" is garbage. Denying the rest because of a few is silly.

2. Yes, in Ontario we also cover erectile stimulants (although likely the generic brand, not the name brand). I would think that wanting to carry out one's life with dignity (and I don't have a problem associating maintaining an erection with male dignity) is something that should be encouraged, no?

[Sei'taer]

Okay:

1. The "right" I'm referring to is the right to choose. Period. The whole behind having a choice is that it's elective. I'm not seeing your reasoning here. ALL abortions are elective, regardless of the rationale (D&C for a non-term fetus, rape, incest, busted condom - whatever). In Ontario, we pay for that, and I'm proud to have that be the case. And the argument that it shouldn't be covered for those cases where it's "birth control" is garbage. Denying the rest because of a few is silly.

2. Yes, in Ontario we also cover erectile stimulants (although likely the generic brand, not the name brand). I would think that wanting to carry out one's life with dignity (and I don't have a problem associating maintaining an erection with male dignity) is something that should be encouraged, no?


Because the "right to choose" goes both ways. You choose to have one, you choose not to have one, you choose to help pay for them, you choose not to help pay for them. Some peoples choice is to call abortions morally unacceptable and to not be associated with them in any way. That's the choice that is being discussed.

[GonzoTheGreat]

But that same choice also exists for cancer treatments, or, perhaps more relevantly: blood transfusions.

There are people who think that giving or getting blood transfusions is wrong (for theological reasons). So, using your reasoning, blood transfusions should not be covered by this bill, so as to make it possible for peopel not to pay for what they do not want to choose.
That's gonna rule out quite a lot of medical procedures, you know.

[yks 6nnetu hing]

Because the "right to choose" goes both ways. You choose to have one, you choose not to have one, you choose to help pay for them, you choose not to help pay for them. Some peoples choice is to call abortions morally unacceptable and to not be associated with them in any way. That's the choice that is being discussed.
yeah, well, if I could, I would stop any of my money ever ending up feeding the Russian "Sovreign democracy" through any means. Unfortunately since we live in a globalised world, that is not possible unless I become Amish and perhaps not even then.

I believe I've said this before: in my opinion, if a person lives in a country and is a citizen of that country he/she has a right to a certain amount of amenities and in response he/she has to comply with the laws of that country (= in this case pay taxes that fund the health care that might fund an abortion at some point). If you don't like that, you've got two options: fascilitate the change of government (either in the form of coup or via democratic means) or move. Or if you want a nice WoT jacket on it: "Take what you want and pay for it"

[Bonzi77]

But that same choice also exists for cancer treatments, or, perhaps more relevantly: blood transfusions.

There are people who think that giving or getting blood transfusions is wrong (for theological reasons). So, using your reasoning, blood transfusions should not be covered by this bill, so as to make it possible for peopel not to pay for what they do not want to choose.
That's gonna rule out quite a lot of medical procedures, you know.

More to your point, there are some people who believe all modern medicine is wrong and faith in God should be the only healer. So where on the spectrum do we draw the line?

This is sort of the problem with the Government dipping in to private industry. I'm a fairly liberal guy but above all I'm a pragmatist. So I'm not against the public option and "socialized" medicine on principle, but I just don't think it should be the first resort and I'm really not sure it would even work. (See also, Amtrak)

If they came to me and said "Bonzi, what do you think we should do?" I'd say the first step is the already included pre-existing condition clause and revoking the antitrust exemption from the healthcare industry. Then I think you need some sort of targeted Tort Reform (a conservative idea). Part of the reason costs are so high is because of the prohibitive cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals.

I think you could build fairly significant bipartisan support around those 3 ideas.

[Sei'taer]

But that same choice also exists for cancer treatments, or, perhaps more relevantly: blood transfusions.

There are people who think that giving or getting blood transfusions is wrong (for theological reasons). So, using your reasoning, blood transfusions should not be covered by this bill, so as to make it possible for peopel not to pay for what they do not want to choose.
That's gonna rule out quite a lot of medical procedures, you know.

True, and I didn't say I agreed with it, I said that as the reasoning behind it. I happen to be against national healthcare for so many other reasons that abortion doesn't even make the list of the things I don't like about it.

As far as my feeling on abortions, it's pretty much a libertarian view...

[GonzoTheGreat]

As far as my feeling on abortions, it's pretty much a libertarian view...Meaning that you're against the initiation of violence, but when pressed, you're not willing to say whether or not this actually counts as an initiation of violence, but you do want the government to stay out of the business?

Edited to add:
I haven't debated a real Libertarian in a while, so I may have gotten it slightly wrong.

[JSUCamel]

If they came to me and said "Bonzi, what do you think we should do?" I'd say the first step is the already included pre-existing condition clause and revoking the antitrust exemption from the healthcare industry. Then I think you need some sort of targeted Tort Reform (a conservative idea). Part of the reason costs are so high is because of the prohibitive cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals.

I think you could build fairly significant bipartisan support around those 3 ideas.

Agreed, 100%. I know I've argued for a public option in the past, and I'm still for a viable public option of some kind. I just don't think this one is viable. There are too many problems going with it.

I really don't understand why they haven't just rolled out those three ideas that everyone can agree on first. They'd go a long way in convincing America that health reform could work, and they'd probably built support for a robust public option, as well. But they're trying to ram the whole thing through at once. I'm not terribly happy with that idea.

I do kinda wish they'd leave a public option up to the states, though.

As far as abortion, I agree with Obama's stance (at least what he said in an interview during the campaign). Primarily, I'm pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I think it's ultimately the woman's choice, and I would hope she would choose life, but I realize that it's not my decision to make. And I don't think it's the government's decision to make, either.

[Sei'taer]

Meaning that you're against the initiation of violence, but when pressed, you're not willing to say whether or not this actually counts as an initiation of violence, but you do want the government to stay out of the business?

Edited to add:
I haven't debated a real Libertarian in a while, so I may have gotten it slightly wrong.

I said pretty much, not totally. And no way in hell are you drawing me into an abortion debate so that's as far as I'm going with it.

[Davian93]

Okay:

1. The "right" I'm referring to is the right to choose. Period. The whole behind having a choice is that it's elective. I'm not seeing your reasoning here. ALL abortions are elective, regardless of the rationale (D&C for a non-term fetus, rape, incest, busted condom - whatever). In Ontario, we pay for that, and I'm proud to have that be the case. And the argument that it shouldn't be covered for those cases where it's "birth control" is garbage. Denying the rest because of a few is silly.

2. Yes, in Ontario we also cover erectile stimulants (although likely the generic brand, not the name brand). I would think that wanting to carry out one's life with dignity (and I don't have a problem associating maintaining an erection with male dignity) is something that should be encouraged, no?

Abortions and Erectile Disfunction aren't the same. For one, ED is an actual medical issue. An abortion (morality aside) is an elective surgery. It should fall under other elective surgeries. There are times when it should be covered and it already is under most health plans. Basic healthplans shouldn't cover birth control. That's on you. Besides, women and men can already get free birth control products rather easily if they really need it. If not, they can afford it most likely as its not an excessive cost.

My stance against paying for elective abortions is not a moral one.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Basic healthplans shouldn't cover birth control.

*raises eyebrows* Really. The Pill shouldn't be covered? But Viagra should? So, a pill that keeps population in check and fixes some women's hormone to a healthy level shouldn't be covered, but a pill that lets horny old men get it up, isn't elective?

Besides, women and men can already get free birth control products rather easily if they really need it. If not, they can afford it most likely as its not an excessive cost.

Yeah, 'cause Planned Parenthood can afford to continue to keep the poor in condoms and The Pill without government subsidies (inculding tax breaks for donations). The money has to come from somewhere.

Fine, Dav, if you want to classify abortion as an elective surgery, I want adoptions to be easier to deal with, either on the giving up of the child or the adopting of said child. Because that unaborted child is not wanted and 90% of the time, the mother never forgives the kid for existing, causing a whole slew of problems down the line.

Meanwhile, it costs you and me a mint to adopt a child. IVF is actually cheaper at this point.

[Davian93]

Fine, Dav, if you want to classify abortion as an elective surgery, I want adoptions to be easier to deal with, either on the giving up of the child or the adopting of said child. Because that unaborted child is not wanted and 90% of the time, the mother never forgives the kid for existing, causing a whole slew of problems down the line.

I completely agree. The cost of adoption (even with the tax breaks) is ridiculous and should be lower.

Perhaps I mispoke on the others. The pill should be covered.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Good. Glad we agree. On those points, at least.

Though I still disagree with your statement about abortions being considered "elective." One way or another, the government will be funding them. Either through tax breaks and subsidies to Planned Parenthood and it's ilk, or through inclusion into the "public option" of this bill. Doing anything other than including it in this assinine "public option" is just adding unnecessary hurdles and paperwork to an overburdened lower class.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Its nice to see that with the exception of maybe Sei, who was pretty non-committal, everyone else missed the point of why the abortion amendment is so troublesome to me.
It's nice to see that you assume everyone who wants to talk about the abortion clause also wants to talk about it using your frame of reference. You make good points below, but that doesn't mean everrone is require to discuss them, as abortion is a broad issue.

The government has taken an issue of what treatments are covered, politicized it, and made an arbitrary determination that not only the public option, but also private insurers that receive public funds, will not be able to choose to cover abortions. The damn thing isn't even passed and their already attempting to mandate which procedures won't be covered and which ones will based on nothing more than POLITICS.Ordinarly I would agree with you on this, but can you find any other examples in the bill? I ask because abortion is such a charged issue, and so pivotal to so many people that it had to be addressed separately. When I say, "had to," I mean politically.

That said, I think the inclusion of this clause does absolutely open the door for more mandates. Just look at the way the discussion has gone:

But that same choice also exists for cancer treatments, or, perhaps more relevantly: blood transfusions.

Most elective surgeries aren't covered by a basic healthcare plan anyway. This is no different in my mind than LASIK surgery or a nosejob.

Yes, in Ontario we also cover erectile stimulants (although likely the generic brand, not the name brand).

Fine, Dav, if you want to classify abortion as an elective surgery, I want adoptions to be easier to deal with, either on the giving up of the child or the adopting of said child.

The discussion went from abortion all the way out to legislating the cost of adoption. I guess my only hope is that if the government is mandating anything, it's mandating it only as it applies to its own health plan and not as a universal standard of coverage.

That said, look again at the bolded part below:

The vote added to the Democratic bill an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and others, that prohibits individuals who receive insurance subsidies from purchasing any plan that pays for elective abortions.It's not just that abortion won't be paid for, it's that any plan that includes coverage for abortion is prohibited. If the government becomes a major purchaser of health care, the insurance companies will have a strong incentive to exclude abortion (and whatever else ends up being prohibited) because that major purchaser won't pay for it.

In effect, the government plan will mandate what private plans do just by virtue of covering so many people.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

It's not just that abortion won't be paid for, it's that any plan that includes coverage for abortion is prohibited. If the government becomes a major purchaser of health care, the insurance companies will have a strong incentive to exclude abortion (and whatever else ends up being prohibited) because that major purchaser won't pay for it.

In effect, the government plan will mandate what private plans do just by virtue of covering so many people.

Thank you, SDog. And no, I don't think the government should actually get involved in adoptions, I just think it's short sighted to label abortion an elective surgery and not cover it and not deal with the consequences.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Thank you, SDog. And no, I don't think the government should actually get involved in adoptions, I just think it's short sighted to label abortion an elective surgery and not cover it and not deal with the consequences.
I agree 100%. It's easy to talk about saving the unborn, but unless you back it up with support for the already born, you're being disingenuous.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Exactly. Makes me want to ask those anti-abortionists how many children they've adopted.

[Davian93]

Exactly. Makes me want to ask those anti-abortionists how many children they've adopted.

FWIW, I'm pro-choice. I just think certain things are elective and shouldn't be covered under a very basic healthcare. I dont care for the restriction on other private healthcare plans as that's making it a moralistic issue and the gov't has already ruled on that in Roe v. Wade.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

The thing about Roe V Wade, is that it's not just an abortion ruling. It's a medical privacy ruling.


I understand your beliefs, Dav. The problem with this thing being on this bill is, like someone pointed out, the government plan will be a gold standard and private plans will follow it.

[Davian93]

The thing about Roe V Wade, is that it's not just an abortion ruling. It's a medical privacy ruling.


I understand your beliefs, Dav. The problem with this thing being on this bill is, like someone pointed out, the government plan will be a gold standard and private plans will follow it.

I doubt the abortion language makes it into the final bill if and when it passes. Several in both Houses have already said that. I do agree with you on that aspect of it.

[Sinistrum]

Um considering it was the ONLY reason the bill passed in the House, Davian, I think you're just indulging in some wishful thinking. Bottom line for me is that the precedent is set and it will be used to justify banning more procedures for equally political rationales. Hey wait a second, isn't the disallowing of procedures by the private insurance companies for no good reason part of the justification for the public option? ;)

[Davian93]

Um considering it was the ONLY reason the bill passed in the House, Davian, I think you're just indulging in some wishful thinking. Bottom line for me is that the precedent is set and it will be used to justify banning more procedures for equally political rationales. Hey wait a second, isn't the disallowing of procedures by the private insurance companies for no good reason part of the justification for the public option? ;)

I'm just relating what several members of both Houses have said, nothing more. Bill Reconciliation is much like Sausage making, lots of stuff gets left on the floor when you're done and its a messy process.

I honestly dont see the Bill passing (at least any recognizable version of it).

[Sinistrum]

Oh I know. Remember I worked on Capital Hill for 8 months. But the numbers in this don't lie. The Stupak Amendment was absolutely critical to it passing the House. By dropping it in Conference, the Dem's will lose the Blue Dog votes it needed in the House to pass a finalized version.