Mother Jones: Why Stupak is more radical than you think.

[kpete]

Stupak is a Radical Change
By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:38:39 PM EST


Mother Jones: Why Stupak is more radical than you think.

The two parts to the Stupak amendment:

*****The Stupak amendment mandates that no federal funds can be used to pay for an abortion or "cover any part of any health plan" that includes coverage of an abortion, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

Part 1 is just the Hyde Amendment. But, part 2?

*****Where pro-lifers won big was on the second part, which could significantly limit the availability of private insurance plans that cover the procedure. That’s because Stupak’s amendment doesn’t just apply to the public option—the lower-cost plan to be offered by the government.



*****The House health care bill will also provide subsidies to help people and small businesses purchase plans on an exchange. This represents a lucrative new market for insurers: anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four qualifies for assistance, as well as certain small companies. But to gain access to these new customers, insurers will have to drop abortion coverage from their plans.

And on the supplemental insurance issue:

*****Imagine if all insurance plans worked like a smorgasbord, in which you tried to guess the operations and medicines you might require sometime in the future. How many procedures would you actually fork out for in advance? Five states already have similar "rider" laws in place, but according to Sonfield, "No one seems to have come up with evidence that these plans are ever sold."

more:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/price-health-reform-abortion-rights

[Luminous Animal]

1. Meanwhile, Kucinich is smeared all over this board

and barely a peep about Stupak.

[laconicsax]

14. Of course.

You see, tossing women under the bus is just politics whereas voting against a bill that mandates private insurance is high treason.

I'm curious how many DUers smearing Kucinich were among those who attacked Clinton's insurance mandates.

[Cherchez la Femme]

15. Funny they haven't showed up here

yet


Has anyone noticed that many DK-bashers have changed their icon to Ted Kennedy?
As if Ted would have vote for that piece of shit bill!

What nerve.

[FLDCVADem]

2. The Mother Jones article

is being disenguous at best, and is outright lying at worst.

True, abortion coverage can't be in any plan that is paid for with subsidies. However, insurers are still able to offer full policies with abortion coverage in the exchange. They just have to offer identical policies w/o abortion coverage as well.

[optimator]

3. yea poor people get fucked

as usual

[prolesunited]

6. Where are all these poor people with health insurance now

that covers elective abortions?

My guess is they have NO health insurance coverage at all.

[Doremus]

4. How many insurers will cave to fundie pressure and refuse to insure it?

Why should women have to be at the whims of the insurers any more than they already are?

Answer: they shouldn't, and certainly not because wingers masquerading as Democrats say they should.

[sandnsea]

7. That is to people who pay themselves

So I think I get your point. They're saying that women won't even to buy a policy with their own money, but that is completely untrue. The bill specifically demands that there be both abortion policies and policies without the abortion option, both, for private purchase. There's no reason to think there wouldn't be because there is now.

[me b zola]

9. If President Obama opposes Stupak-Pitts, why do you support it?

Now, I don't support everything the President has said or done. But you have said in as many threads as possible that you are pro-choice. Why don't you take the President at his word that Stupak places restrictions on a woman's accessability to health care that go beyond Hyde? Do you know more about what is in the legislation than he does?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-obama-jobs-health-care-ft/story?id=9033559

[sandnsea]

12. I've proposed a solution about a cazillion times

An abortion rider on every single solitary policy sold in the country, available to every single person, man or woman. Administered separately.

What the President said, is that this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. We're not going to sneak abortion changes in by adding coverage that isn't available in any other federal system; and we're not going to place restrictions that go beyond Hyde.

He further said people have got to come together and find a solution, which is what I said the second this issue came up. I think we can do better than Stupak, I think we can provide the option for abortion coverage without creating separate abortion policies, or slut plans as some people around here like to call them. That's what I've said from the beginning.

Amazing that I can look at the facts, look at the views of both sides, and come up with the same position as the President, and offer a solution as well.

Better plan than ranting and raving.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Where is the lying?

"The House health care bill will also provide subsidies to help people and small businesses purchase plans on an exchange. This represents a lucrative new market for insurers: anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four qualifies for assistance, as well as certain small companies. But to gain access to these new customers, insurers will have to drop abortion coverage from their plans."

There are plenty of families of four who earn less than $88,000 (the median household income is about $50,000) and if their employer or if they themselves want to access insurance through the exchange, either public or private, they will be barred from selecting a plan that includes abortion coverage.

[sandnsea]

13. They will have to create abortion policies

for these new customers, not drop abortion from current coverage. Not that most plans have abortion coverage now, because they don't.

The amendment also says that any plan in the exchange that has abortion coverage, has to have an identical plan offered without it. That is for the private pays. So the notion that women can't even spend their own money on a plan is wrong.

But so is pretending that adding full abortion coverage to the exchange and the public option isn't sharply altering Hyde too.

[me b zola]

5. K&R

[Major Hogwash]

8. Great thread.

Mother Jones is right on!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I'll admit on first read seemed like Hyde

but this is far more radical.

By the way, I am almost betting that this was put in there by C Street to kill health care reform... poison pill and all

Yes, Dominionists are that crazy and most importantly radical

[bullwinkle428]

16. Jeff Sharlet (author of "The Family") confirmed their role in the Stupak thing

this morning on Thom Hartmann's show!