Obama on Health Care Reform: 'This Is Our Moment' _OOPS MINUS WOMEN!!

The headline left out an important point!!


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/obama-on-health-care-reform-this-is-our-moment.html


Obama on Health Care Reform: 'This Is Our Moment'

November 07, 2009 3:14 PM


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

is not our moment.....
it's their moment.

even if you think so.

A few thousands lives mean nothing in relation to their "ideals"----whatever that bullshit they call ideals are. Millions of people would have been dying or sick and untreated---me for one of them. This bill actually gives me an opportunity to have healthcare and they are whinging over an amendment that no one knows will see the light of day.

Instead of beign excited we made this far and getting united to fight the amendment in the senate----they put the blame either on Obama, Pelosi, and say the ENTIRE thing is BS and won't do anything. These asses can kiss my ass at this point. I'm fed up with them, because rather than seeing somethig good has happened, which is has, they'd rather thing it's over.

Let them, I just know I'll be calling up Rangel and thanking him for his vote but also asking Rangel to dump this Stupak Amendment and getting a few of us organized to fight the language in that thing. I'm going to fight it in the senate rather than act stupid on a board to feel as though I'm worth something.

Ugh these people, OP and a few other Dems on this board, to me are as bad if not worse than the teabaggers. Frighteningly way too many damned similiarities.

Sat. night.

You know crap....and that blinds you regularly.

Really, we fight an uphill battle with some here. I give up and frankly could care less anymore. I mean, how dare we actually care what happens to us, right?

I'm sure those 38 million more Americans who will be covered appreciate that fact that you and your ilk consider them nothing more than crumbs.

To those of us who live in the reality based world, we understand that this is just the start. We know that it wasn't going to be everything we wanted and we're not going to stomp our feet like spoiled children until we get everything we want. We'll continue to push for a better bill but until then, we'll be happy with this start.

those already struggling to survive will be further burdened by mandates to join a broken profit-driven system.

BTW, what became of the "robust" public option we were promised?

You're saying that ALL of them hate Women. They were denyin women based on being female, just for that alone, as a preexisting condition. Women, irrespective of the Stupak, will actually not have to deal with that. Further more, there is no confirmation that amendment will be in the final bill.

...then you have to find your own way to pay for it.

As I said in another thread, the amendment in no way challenges a woman's right to an abortion. It reinforces existing federal laws that bar tax dollars from being spent to assist women in having them unless its a case of rape, incest or life endangerment. That means if a woman decides to have an abortion just because she doesn't feel like carrying a fetus to full term, she will have to find her own way to pay for it, same way its ALWAYS been. So it changes absolutely ZERO in regards to actual rights and where they stood before there ever was a bill.

I know some like to exaggerate the impacts of that amendment and make it out to be a larger deal than it actually is, but the truth is, it really doesn't mean a damn thing other than it made some religious types feel better.

With all the tens of thousands of non-abortion related medical conditions that could now have care provided for, its really stupid to marginalize the bill as you are and pretend that women are somehow being giving the shaft, especially considering that breast cancer survivors would now be eligible for coverage when they otherwise probably would not have been.

You know I've been asking that from the loudmouths for ages and not ONE can provide me the language. One of them didn't even read the language. I already know there are laws that deny payment for abortions. This is a fact and everyone here knew about it. I thought the Stupak amendment did that. I did read one article which suggested that it would affect a change in single payer votes in California though....which I found surprising. So any official language and details would be great. The irrational are not good in asking about these thngs.

First, anyone who participates in the public option, even those who pay every single solitary cent of their own premiums can't have abortion covered under their policy. Thus they are denied the ability to spend their own money to pay for insurance that would pay for abortions.

Second, anyone who recieves any subisidy at all, even if it is one single solitary cent, can't buy insurance which will pay for abortions with even their own money.

Both of these are way further than the Hyde Amendment went.

To get insurance which covers abortions a person will have to buy a policy on the exchange or via the public option going through all the attendent underwriting hassles and then search on the purely private market going through even more underwriting hassles to get a totally seperate policy.

They have to do it outside of their coverage is exactly what I was saying and you just backed me up on that.

You can try again if you like.

The Stupak amendment just means if you want an abortion because you don't FEEL like having a baby...
...then you have to find your own way to pay for it.

As I said in another thread, the amendment in no way challenges a woman's right to an abortion. It reinforces existing federal laws that bar tax dollars from being spent to assist women in having them unless its a case of rape, incest or life endangerment. That means if a woman decides to have an abortion just because she doesn't feel like carrying a fetus to full term, she will have to find her own way to pay for it, same way its ALWAYS been. So it changes absolutely ZERO in regards to actual rights and where they stood before there ever was a bill.

I know some like to exaggerate the impacts of that amendment and make it out to be a larger deal than it actually is, but the truth is, it really doesn't mean a damn thing other than it made some religious types feel better.

With all the tens of thousands of non-abortion related medical conditions that could now have care provided for, its really stupid to marginalize the bill as you are and pretend that women are somehow being giving the shaft, especially considering that breast cancer survivors would now be eligible for coverage when they otherwise probably would not have been.

end of quote bold mine

You claimed that nothing changed. The simple fact is that this is way beyond the Hyde Amendment. To take a simple, hope you can follow it, example.

Jane Smith finds out her insurance will cost her 10k and that she will get a 1k subsidy. Thus she pays 9k and the government pays 1k. She can't spend her own money on a policy that would cover abortion under Sputak.

Jane Doe lives in New York. She is on Medicaid. The feds pay 5k for her and the state pays 5k for her. New York is permitted to spend all of the 5k on abortion if it sees fit to under Hyde.

Now if you can't see the fact that this is a difference, then I honestly don't know what to say.

Weak. :thumbsdown:

broken bones, infectious diseases, elder care, or anything else?

That's despicable!

Oh, no free abortions. Well, I guess we toss the whole thing out and let those uninsured women with cancer die because there's no free abortions.

We gots to have our principles.

Hyde is the man that kept women from using government funded insurance programs from covering abortion services.

overseas is cut off by Bush and everyone is outraged. Tax dollars in the form of subsidies to help poor and working class women access safe legal abortions is restricted in the states and it's tough shit for those women who don't "feel" like having a child.

but Stupak had to hold it over Pelosi's head so she could get the votes. Really, I hope it comes out in conference committee.
There are many states restricting public funds going toward abortions. But this only makes it even more strict. And it sets up a two-tier system where the rich can pay for an abortion but the poor cannot. But to me, it is more about certain blue dogs in congress then the entire bill itself. And some of these blue dogs voted for that amendment and then turned around and voted against the entire health care bill. I know they are in more conservative districts. Maybe that is the best we can get from those areas. But I am very angry at those cowards today. I am torn. I think everyone here was outraged by it.

with the worst minefields full of lobbyist bribed, cash rich senators supposedly on our side to get through. The house bill is the bare minimum that we need to get people ins. reform. It is about to be de-fanged and neutered in the senate.

I doubt they will strip a dark ages amendment that panders to their base- upper middle class socially conservative "democrats".

In your eagerness to use any and all excuses to express your Failer bitterness towards President Obama for daring (MEOW!) to win it all last year, you conveniently ignored the fact that Stupak's amendment does nothing more than apply the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. Reality-based liberals embrace the facts and want HCR to proceed.

To take one example. Under they Hyde Amendment federal medicaid money can't be spend on abortions but state medicaid money can. Under this bill, if a person gets one, single, solitary cent of subsidy from the federal government they can't buy a policy which pays for abortion. In addition, even if a person pays the entirety of the premium for the public option, the public option can't cover abortions. Both of those are above and beyond anything the Hyde Amendment does. You owe the OP a big ass apology but I won't be holding my breath waiting for it.

... due to the Hyde Amendment. The Stupak Amendment is a GOP stab at legislative redundancy which is meant to satisfy their
evangelical/teabagger base. As for the rest of what I said about the OP, I stand by it.

you are plain, flat out, gold carat wrong. The Hyde Amendment has always permitted that entities getting federal funds could spend their own money on abortion. Under Stupak they can't. It isn't my opinion, it is clearly spelled out in utterly unambiguous language. You either are totally ignornant of that clear language or lying.

You conveniently ignore this fact, as does the OP. Why?

You keep insisting on ranting about the Stupak Amendment, which has yet to emerge from conference unchanged. Unlike some here, I prefer to wait until after conference in order to comment on the final bill.

Say insurance costs 10k for a family under this plan and Jane Smith gets a subsidy of 1k for her premium. She is banned, out right banned, from spending any of the other 9k on a policy which covers abortion. That is a 180 degree change from current law. Currently if New York gets 9k from the feds to cover Jane Doe and spends 1k of its own money to cover her, they can spend as much of the 1k as they wish to pay for abortion services.

As for the Stupak amendment, why do you act as if all of its provisions will remain unchanged when the entire bill is about to undergo conference and has yet to be reconciled with the Senate version?

than we do of seeing a provision that attracted the only Republican who voted for the bill. It is beyond absurd to think this provision is going anywhere. As to your other point, the original bill banned taxpayer funds, now it bans both taxpayer funds and private funds.

<<As to your other point, the original bill banned taxpayer funds, now it bans both taxpayer funds and private funds.>>

If you don't mind, I'll wait until the final bill in order to comment on an amendment that has yet to come out of conference.
Also, provide proof of your statement. Links and quotes would be helpful.

FWIW, folks who can afford 10K premiums can use their "private funds" to go to Planned Parenthood. And I know of many friends
and acquaintances who have never used/had insurance or Medicaid and they still managed to have multiple abortions.

As for your prediction re: the outcome of Stupak amendment: it seems alot of anonymous folks at DU seem to think they know the
outcome of legislative events before the happen. I am dubious, but even if your worst fears came true, I am still in favor of HCR
because I have family members with pre-existing conditions who would no longer be denied insurance come January 2010 if it
passed. The legislation will also cover 96 percent of Americans by 2015, while reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars
by 2019. Not too shabby.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There are many years ahead to tweak legislation, as Congress did with Social
Security and Medicaid.

Lets see, you, vs every single solitary speaker against this bill, whom to believe, whom to believe, OH wait, I know, them.

On edit

Here is a link to Jerald Nadler's statement

http://www.r8ny.com/node/149673

“Despite the significant efforts made by the
underlying bill to level the playing field for women and ending discrimination
against them in the health insurance market, this amendment seeks to add a new
discriminatory measure against women seeking health insurance coverage. Under
the Stupak proposal, if a woman is of low- or moderate income and receives
assistance to afford the premiums for a health plan she purchases through the Exchange,
she cannot choose a plan that covers abortion services. And if a woman chooses
the public option, she cannot receive abortion coverage – even if she
pays for the plan entirely by herself.

end of quote

I could literally post 20 of these if needed.

in the post. I guess Nadler is a liar too, right. The words you are looking for are I'm sorry I'm an ass.

oh and I mentioned all of the speakers in my post. You could have looked it up just like I did.

http://docs.house.gov/rules/3962/Stupak3962_108.pdf

I can't cut and paste so I am retyping here.

In general, No funds authorized by this act (or amendment made by this act) may be used to pay for abortion or to cover any part of the costs of a health plan that includes coverage of abortion

end of quote

Now go ahead and lecture me and Nadler as to how that amendment doesn't say what we said it says.

"I have absolutely no problem with the way the abortion section is written, as long as it pay for abortions that were the result of rape, incest or if the health of the mother is at risk -- which it does.

People can either pay for their own elective abortions or buy a supplemental policy that covers it. Much like they do for elective breast ehancements, face lifts and botox. Should tax payers have to pay for those elective procedures as well?

Elective abortions are legal, but that doesn't mean they should be tax-payer funded."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8739881&mesg_id=8741656

-------------------------------------

I'll wait until the final bill in order to comment on an amendment that has yet to come out of conference. FWIW, folks who can afford
10K premiums can use their "private funds" to go to Planned Parenthood. And I know of many friends and acquaintances who have
never used/had insurance or Medicaid and they still managed to have multiple abortions.

As for your prediction re: the outcome of Stupak amendment: it seems alot of anonymous folks at DU seem to think they know the
outcome of legislative events before the happen. I am dubious, but even if your worst fears came true, I am still in favor of HCR
because I have family members with pre-existing conditions who would no longer be denied insurance come January 2010 if it
passed. The legislation will also cover 96 percent of Americans by 2015, while reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars
by 2019. Not too shabby.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There are many years ahead to tweak legislation, as Congress did with Social
Security and Medicaid.

and quite another to dishonestly claim that what people were saying was total lies. It should be noted that it also won't pay for abortions in cases where there is a health problem that won't lead to death. So if a woman has a pregancy that would lead to sterility if carried to term, she would have to carry it under this provision unless she could afford to pay out of pocket. That very same woman today might well be covered by private insurance.

For the record, I never once made the "claim that what people were saying was total lies."

As for your obsession with elective abortion funding. Have at it. I'm more interested in having 96% of Americans insured with
no cap and no pre-existing conditions. I'll wait until the final bill in order to comment on an amendment that has yet to come
out of conference. FWIW, folks who can afford 10K premiums can use their "private funds" to go to Planned Parenthood. And I
know of many friends and acquaintances who have never used/had insurance or Medicaid and they still managed to have
multiple abortions. That's called being responsible for one's mistakes. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for elective
abortions.

As for your prediction re: the outcome of Stupak amendment: it seems alot of anonymous folks at DU seem to think they know the
outcome of legislative events before the happen. I am dubious, but even if your worst fears came true, I am still in favor of HCR
because I have family members with pre-existing conditions who would no longer be denied insurance come January 2010 if it
passed. The legislation will also cover 96 percent of Americans by 2015, while reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars
by 2019. Not too shabby.

The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. There are many years ahead to tweak legislation, as Congress did with Social
Security and Medicaid.

pretty sad that you apparently do. What if they pass an amendment banning even private funds from supporting cures coming from stem cells (sounds ridiculous except the very same bishops who forced this down our throats also oppose stem cell research)

What's "pretty sad" is you obviously care less about the many positives of the House bill which benefits the vast majority of
Americans. I and most Democrats are very happy that HCR passed the House vote last night.

Your fixation on the Stupak amendment is evidence of a political cognitive dissonance that I have no interest in further addressing.
You've been a Failer since before President Obama was inaugurated. I don't expect anything but complaints from you for the next
eight years. When one of your relatives gets insurance without caps after January 2010 despite a pre-existing condition, be sure
to rant about the Stupak Amendment to them, okay? I've heard enough.

Have a good day.

and I can not apologize enough for being one!!!

Seriously, it's unbelievable what they are doing... except over the last 9 years, I have come to believe the unbelievable, the a-moral, is possible now =<[br />bare, naked, faschism!

They arn't even TRYING to hide it anymore!!!

OH GREAT FSM... SAVE US!

There is no sarcasm or attempt to be funny in this post.
it is 100 percent shame and disbelief.

eventually will allow me to have healthcare, with all its flaws.

I do not like the Stupack amendment, but my answer to this is F* the idiots who cannot what is important.

The biopsy missed it, so she's on chemo.

That is a good point. You will still be covered, even if they make you pay more. and it'll be there.

My best friend has lymphoma and has his testicles removed.

Cancer is very much a part of my life now (both diagnosed within weeks of each other)

I want everyone to be covered like my sister is (her husband is a coast guard non-comm).

It's wrong that we are so poor in the department that matters most... taking care of our citizens equally! and well!

It can't be more than a small fraction of it, in fact. The Stupak amendment sucks because it's a sneaky way to discourage insurance providers from providing abortion coverage--I get that. But it doesn't change the legality of abortion. It's just a fly in the soup. I'll still take the soup.

I agree with you. I also agree with this sentiment:

"People can either pay for their own elective abortions or buy a supplemental policy that covers it. Much like they do for elective breast enhancements, face lifts and botox. Should tax payers have to pay for those elective procedures as well?

Elective abortions are legal, but that doesn't mean they should be tax-payer funded."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8739881&mesg_id=8741656

doesn't bother me. And I'm glad they are at least providing exceptions in rape/health instances. I think the sticky wicket with the Stupak amendment is that it broadly discourages most insurance companies from offering it as coverage even on private plans, because those companies will want to participate in the Exchange--can't allow any subsidized woman to opt for plans with abortion coverage, which means they just won't cover it at all unless they want to be at a competetive disadvantage, targeting only those who don't need subsidies. That's the way I understand it, anyway. However, I am not really all that concerned about how abortions get paid for--low down on my list of things to get upset about.