I think Karoli’s right, that’s going to be the big trade in conference. The language out of the Senate on choice is bad, but not nearly so bad as Stupak. It doesn’t expressly prohibit women from buying plans with abortion coverage on the exchange, and because of that, it’s unlikely to affect abortion coverage across the board the way Stupak did. (It will, of course, studiously avoid paying one thin dime for abortion coverage, and it will allow anti-choice states to opt out of this coverage — which is why it’s still bad).
But the Senate bill has no public option whatsoever. The House bill has the public option, and the Stupak language. And I think Karoli’s right: the big compromise is going to be a weakening of the anti-choice language or a weak public option and/or Medicare expansion, but not both.
For my money, I’d much rather have better language on choice and no public option than Stupak language on choice and a public option. The Nelson language is essentially at my threshold for tolerance of anti-choice gamesmanship; anything to the right of that should be fought. And frankly, I’d like to see better language in the final bill. The public option, contrawise, has never been something I’ve seen as essential. I don’t really care if plans are public, private, or non-profit, or a mixture of both. I guess I’d prefer a public option to none, but not more than I’d prefer more neutrality on choice to what we’ve got going now.
So I’ll throw it open to the crowd: would you rather see a public option, or keep choice from being weakened further? That’s probably the trade-off in conference. And it’s something to consider as we go forward.
oh, this is interesting. i thought both were out. you can filibuster in conference right? anyway, assuming your right, and i don’t really have a dog in the fight, but if i were a progressive i’d go with public option. that’s revolutionary, the Trojan horse you need to get to single payer.
the only problem with single payer or Strong public option is what happens to innovation and drug development? for all the complaints about our heath system i rarely see progressives address this question. the rest of the world depends on us to produce advanced therapies for them.
but if that goes we’ll never know the damage since there s no way to calculate how many people died because a cancer drug for example was never developed. its like how rent control survived depite every serious economist telling us its a killer. since no one sees the deaths, the people don’t complain.
thats why nixon wanted to just give poor people money to but healthcare in the private markets . he also wanted a minimum income, but got neither…i think that what Kennedy was referring to when he talked about his greatest regret, but i could be wrong. either way, in retrospect, its amazing how progressive nixon was.
See this sort of logic is the sort that I do not understand at all.
If you want a public option and only slightly worse language on abortion than the Hyde amendment then why choose? Unless you’re actually doing the horse trading yourself in a secret life then the more you organise around these two goals the stronger the chance of them happening will be. Trading off what you want
And if what you actually is want universal health care run for patients not profit where abortion is treated like any other aspect of health care – then say that. You don’t make language on abortion slightly worse than the Hyde amendment (and that is the saddest most pathetic political goal I have ever heard) any less likely by organising around what you actually want.
I think you are deeply mistaken. There will definitely not be a public option in the final bill. Almost certainly the Senate language on abortion will be adopted.
Focusing your energy on trying to get a public option back into the conference bill is a waste of time. Focus on other things, like subsidy levels and regulations and the like. Pressure on those issues can probably make a real difference in what the conference committee does.
But the public option is dead. As far as abortion, it’s probably worth putting on some pressure to insure that the senate version is what’s in the final bill, but I think that that’s probably pretty close to a foregone conclusion – it’s not like the House leadership wants to have Stupak-Pitts in it either, and it’s almost certainly not true that Pelosi will not be able to get votes in the House without it.
jeff: are you saying there is no filibister going forward? the vote on the final bill just has to have a straight majority? That does change the dynamics.
Manju – I don’t know what Jeff is saying, but the conference report can be filibustered. Ben Nelson has already threatened to filibuster if the abortion language is changed in the final bill. I’m sure Lieberman would filibuster if the public option came back.
I haven’t studied the bills in enough detail to form my own opinion, but I just read Amanda’s post over at Pandagon, and she favors keeping both.
I don’t think that the public option is a real possibility; Lieberman would filibuster it. Reid knows that, so wouldn’t agree to it in conference.
But if I had to choose, I’d choose same as you: scrap the public option to avoid Stupak. But I think you’re mistaken to think that’s the choice we face.
None of this is acceptable. If Schumer or Gillibrand vote for an anti choice bill or vote for a bill without a strong public option, I will never vote for either of them again. I’m mad as hell, and I’m not taking it any more.
Am I correct in taking from this that you would rather see no health care bill pass than a health care bill without a strong public option?
—Myca
If that’s the choice, then take out Stupak. That’s a no-brainer. Stupak makes no sense for the Democrats from an ideological or political standpoint. The public option can be replaced by expanded subsidies and other cost control measures. The weakling public option that was being debated in the Senate bill, can be replaced by my stopping by Capitol Hill and shouting “Gooooo Health Care!” for all the good it would have actually done.
How about no below the belt coverage for anyone? If all we’re going to get is an unfair system anyway, than make it equally unfair. If women can’t get reproductive care, why should men get their systems covered?
Agree with sylphhead. I would rather have had a real, strong public option, but we’re not getting it, and I’ve been convinced that the current plan — assuming no mandate and/or stronger subsidies, changes that may be necessary to get the House on board — will be more helpful than harmful. It will be a lot easier to tweak that part of the bill in future Congress sessions than it would be to undo Stupak.
If this is true, then you misunderstand what we’re talking about, no?
Stupak/Nelson means HCR doesn’t need my support. I cannot simultaneously be under the bus and on it.
@politicalguineapig – I’m quite sure that neither plan includes abortions for men. And as for other procedures, I’m willing to bet that the Stupak amendment does nothing to prevent coverage for yeast infections, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, ectopic pregnancies, or any other maladies of the feminine crotchtal area.
Anyways, the thing that frustrates me is I’m hearing millions of contradictory things about coverage-caps, price limits for pre-existing conditions (some people saying 3x base price, some people saying no limit)
I wasn’t suggesting that men have abortions. What I am suggesting is that we take federal money for treatment of e.d. off the table until such time as the Hyde Amendment is repealed and Stupak is reconsidered. Bet it’d take days..
I don’t think Schumer is worried about his seat. He’s not tied to Patterson like Gillibrand is, for one thing.
That said, I’d continue to consider voting for Gillibrand in the general election if she votes for a bill that doesn’t put abortion farther out of reach, even if it doesn’t have The Public Option. I think Jeff’s analysis is correct that The Public Option is being treated as a talisman. It’s second-best (after single payer), but the more we get of eliminating recission, and eliminating preexisting conditions as a concept, and requiring insurers to pay out premiums, and expanding Medicare, the less advantageous the public option is (though again, it’s still better even than all that, except maybe the last one).
Are you sure that federal healthcare covers Viagra? Medicare doesn’t. Besides, there’s a rather essential difference between the two. Viagra is prescribed for a medical problem – one of the body’s systems don’t work. Elective abortion, OTOH, is only performed when the reproductive system IS working.
Ron, the question isn’t what Federal healthcare like Medicare covers; the question is what the private insurance plans offered through the forthcoming health exchanges will cover.
(Think of the health exchanges as a shopping mall for insurance plans. The government is building a shopping mall, but the stores inside the shopping mall — the insurance plans — will still be owned and operated by private industry.)
Besides, thereâ??s a rather essential difference between the two. Viagra is prescribed for a medical problem – one of the bodyâ??s systems donâ??t work. Elective abortion, OTOH, is only performed when the reproductive system IS working.
Unconvincing. Women die from pregnancy-even completely “normal”, low risk pregnancies. Men do not die of impotence. Pregnancy is clearly the greater public health risk. On the other hand, impotence can clearly affect quality of life. So personally I favor covering both. Plus it keeps people away from slippery elm and rhino horn.
RonF: As far as I’m concerned erectile dysfunction is not a legitimate medical problem.
Then you’re really, really wrong.
You know how feminists have this undeserved reputation for hating men? And you know how MRAs keep talking about these straw men feminists who actively want to harm men just for being men? And you know how we all argue and protest and tell them that, “No! No! That’s not what feminism is about!”?
Yeah. You’re who they’re talking about. Thanks for making everything harder.
—Myca
Politicalguineapig,
The other moderators and i have been discussing your contributions to Alas for a while. For some time, we debated whether you were an actual, very confused, rather hateful radfem, or a sockpuppet of an MRA only pretending to be confused and hateful. We decided you were legit.
I’ve wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your comments deriding male victims of rape were far over the line. Ampersand and Myca and I agreed then that we should ban you, but I didn’t send out the ban notice because I got distracted for a few days by life-type stuff. Then I figured the moment had passed.
Now, alas, I think it has returned. Politicalguineapig, I hope that you will spend some time learning about the shades of grey that exist between sheer evil and sheer good — but while you are still involved in that learning process, I’m afraid we can’t sponsor your comments here.
Men are not testosterone poisoned dangers to everyone around them, particularly their children. Male victims of rape are not miraculously non-traumatized because they are men. Men who comment here deserve to be treated better than that, just as the women who comment here deserve better than to be assailed by
parallel* hatefulness.Please do not comment on Alas again.
*I retract the word “parallel” due to power differentials. But power differentials do not make these attacks okay.