Obama triumph ahead

[babylonsister]

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/ben-goddard/67445-obama-triumph-ahead


Obama triumph ahead
By Ben Goddard - 11/11/09 07:03 PM ET


Much of the political chatter about healthcare reform in the past week has been of the glass-half-empty variety. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to make too many deals. Blue Dog Democrats who were corralled into supporting the legislation are now vulnerable. The calendar allows Republicans to organize dozens of high-profile town hall meetings to rally constituents in opposition.

Yes, there is a rocky road ahead. But I don’t think that is what most Americans are focused on. Even after all the August town halls, the marches in Washington and the campaigns being waged against the Obama proposal, Americans still want healthcare reform. A majority still support some form of a public option to provide greater competition in the insurance marketplace. Yes, there are swing districts where support for any government-run plan could cost Democrats votes. But if history provides any glimpse of the future, and it usually does, that pain will likely be mitigated once there is actually a law on the books. Runaway costs and fears of a government takeover were raised against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs are now virtually untouchable — the third rails of American politics.

So what message did America get from the historic weekend vote in the House? Well, I’m not sure everyone would articulate it in exactly these words, but the sense I get from the grass roots is that the president scored. The message for most Americans is that Barack Obama has done what no president has ever done before. He actually got a bill passed in one house of Congress. When the president visited Capitol Hill on Saturday there was nothing but speculation and high hopes on the part of those wanting a bill. When he left there were 220 votes — even an unexpected Republican one. Pelosi certainly deserves a lot of credit for her commitment to the cause. Her oft-derided liberalism gave her the leverage she needed to keep one wing of her caucus in line, and her last-minute pragmatic dealing kept many from the other wing in the fold. She deserves kudos for engineering that legislative victory. But it was POTUS who sank the 30-foot shot and made sure she could declare that the bill had passed.

This president certainly showed that he has learned from the mistakes made by the Clinton White House; in fact, his strategy was almost a complete reversal of the one used by president Clinton back in the day. He started by reaching out to many of the groups that had opposed the Clinton plan 15 years before. He cut deals with the pharmaceutical industry, the hospital industry and even had insurers at the table for six months or so. Most importantly, he didn’t deliver a package created in a vacuum to the Congress. He laid out the principles and goals of reform and then asked the legislators to legislate. It wasn’t always a pretty sight, and there have been stumbles along the way, but something finally got done.

There are still a lot of messy fights ahead over the details. Special interests will continue trying to carve out exceptions for themselves and, if possible, figure some way to actually make a little more money out of the system. Liberals will carp that the legislation is not good enough. Conservatives will bemoan the fact that it goes too far. But it looks like Obama actually has momentum. It now appears likely that some kind of healthcare reform will land on his desk early next year. If it does, he will sign the most important and sweeping domestic legislation in half a century.

That will, eventually, be the message America’s voters get out of this battle. They wanted reform 15 years ago — two-thirds said then that they wanted “radical reform.” Now they will happily settle for something a little less. And when the bill actually becomes law, President Obama and most of the Democrats in Congress will get the credit for it.

As a cynical old political hack and the guy who created the campaign many credit with — or blame for — the demise of Clinton healthcare, I’m supposed to be a little less of a Pollyanna about such matters. But I can’t help it. Like a lot of Americans, I’m thinking that the “skinny kid with a funny name” who grew up to be president just may pull this off. I’m going to savor that message a little before we get back into the game.

[HopeOverFear]

1. k & r

[MNDemNY]

2. Will you still support the HCR bill if the Stupak language remains in the final bill?

[babylonsister]

3. I'm optimistic it will be removed. nt

[MNDemNY]

5. But that, as you know , was not the question.

Are you willing to answer that question? You do a lot of posting pushing the house HCR bill, I think you owe it to the DUers who read and recommend your posts an answer. Yes or NO, will you support the health care reform bill if the Stupak language remains intact? :D :shrug:

[babylonsister]

7. Yes I will; it will still help loads of people, and selfishly,

myself, too. I need insurance and with my pre-existing condition, cannot afford it.

How's that?

But I still remain optimistic it will not be included in the final version.

[MNDemNY]

10. It is brave of you to admit that ...

you are willing to toss decades of work for reproductive rights away for a bill that does little more than insure the industry's huge profits into the next century. Are there other human rights that you are willing to relinquish in order to save this bill? Who's rights are expendable? A fine Democrat you are. But at least you answered the question. You should make more of an effort to point that out as you continue to shill for this lousy bill. Honesty is always welcome.

[babylonsister]

11. Thanks for the lecture; coming from you it's positively laughable. nt

[MNDemNY]

13. You are the one willing to delegate 50 years of fighting for womens rights to the scrap heap.

But, again, at least you have admitted to your motives. A health care bill at any cost.

[DrToast]

16. I guess that makes you the one sentencing those without health insurance to death

Shame on you.

[MNDemNY]

17. Trading one groups civil rights for another's? No not me, that would be you.

I hold the position that we can enact real health care reform. This bill is not it. Shame, indeed, on those who would pass this bill.

[ecstatic]

29. We all hope the Stupak language is removed, but if it's not

then uninsured women will still be well served by this bill. Do you really think it's better to have no insurance at all? :shrug:

[MNDemNY]

33. Bullshit.

Nothing more to say to you.

[ecstatic]

34. I am a woman who has spent 98% of my life uninsured,

but I guess my opinion doesn't matter. Yours is the only opinion that matters. :eyes:

And guess what? Reproductive health doesn't begin and end with abortion. There are so many issues women are facing--fibroids, irregular periods, anemia, etc. But by all means, get back on your high horse and tell me that we all should wait for your perfect plan to be passed.

[MNDemNY]

39. Apparently only your opinion matters.

Only a female can have a stance on this issue?? Are you some sort of sexist? If this plan was anything more than an insurance policy for the insurance industry profits I would support it. It is not. It does more harm in solidifying the for -profit industry, and the unsustainable employment -based coverage that is the biggest barrier to better labor conditions and job creation that there is. This bill does not do anything near enough. You and your co-horts are shilling it only to get a win, and a nice Rose Garden Signing ceremony. Get your head out of the high horse's ass and pay attention to what this bill really does, and at what cost.

[ecstatic]

42. In other words, this isn't about choice. This is about your hatred for the insurance industry

Thanks for exposing your faux outrage. I cherish and have exercised my right to choose. So don't you f*cking lecture me on choice. But you know what? That's the LEAST of my and millions of other womens' worries right now. We need healthcare insurance so we can get birth control and thousands of other treatments for situations we face. Go out into the real world sometime and ask, since you appear to be confused.

[MNDemNY]

44. I will lecture you, or any other Faux Democrat who shills this bill.

All you want is a "win" nothing else matters. What other rights are you willing to give away to save this dog of a bill???Your blind shilling is becoming more transparent each passing day. I have been very clear from day one on my many reasons to oppose this bill, you and your buddies have been shilling it at every turn. NOTHING MATTERS TO YOU except the Rose Garden bill signing that you seem to think will cure all.

[ecstatic]

45. If a "faux Democrat" = someone with a pre-existing condition then guilty as charged

If I'm "shilling," I am "shilling" for myself and millions of people with no insurance and with pre-existing conditions. I'm guessing you have your insurance so you can hold out for the perfect bill while millions die. On second thought, YOU are the Faux democrat. Shame on you!

[MNDemNY]

49. Exactly what, and who's rights are you willing to trade for less than mediocre health coverage?

It seems you have quantified this, please share.

[saracat]

128. I am a Real Democrat with a preexisting condition and I will NOT support this Bill if Stupak is not

removed. As for providing insurance to millions of Americans and, that is a debatable point. I will not be eligible to participate in those program and I need insurance because of the application of income levels for subsidy among other issues. And then there is the definition of "income" itself. We are draining our retirement to survive and pay our health insurance. We are unemployed and it isn't looking good for the future. But we still pay taxes as it is considered "income". Our insurance is over $12OO and that doesn't include drugs. The best calculations indicate our insurance under the PO wouldn't be any less costly."Affordable" is a another undefined word in the legislation. Affordable for whom?

This is likely why the president has indicated this will actually cover only 3% of the people. Why are we making concessions to get this, and why doesn't the other side ever have to make concessions? And I am speaking of our own caucus.Why do the Blue Dogs not have to negotiate.That would be true leadership. They should be forced to vote with us or risk losing something themselves. Why do we have to roll over for them?

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MNDemNY]

48. God is in fact , fiction, therefore he could not be an asshole.

[MNDemNY]

51. This health care bill is a nice piece of "speculative fiction" is it not?

:hi: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[demwing]

56. So lets talk about the amendment, - again

because I'm betting you still have an incorrect understanding of the extent and language of the amendment.

[MNDemNY]

60. Really? Defend it please.

[demwing]

83. Let's be specific

I have no intention of defending the amendment on all levels. But it is a common misunderstanding that Stupak extends Hyde, or eliminates elective abortions from being offered on the exchange.

I'm no fan of Stupak the man or the amendment, but am a fan of standing on the truth. If you disagree withe my conclusions about the Stupak amendment, let me know.

[MNDemNY]

92. It in ,effect does just that.

you are misinformed.No plan that is subsidized in any way with tax dollars, in part or whole could offer that coverage.None.Not the PO not the private plans offered in "the exchange".

[demwing]

158. That's correct

No federal dollars can be spent on any plan that covers elective abortion. But that's the same restriction as Hyde, so what's the new issue?

There is NOTHING in Stupak that would prevent private plans in the exchange from covering elective abortion, as long as the provider also offers identical plans that do not cover those procedures. In other words, they have to offer choice.

Why is choice a bad thing?

[Hello_Kitty]

165. The bill doesn't require insurance cos. to cover birth control.

And if the fundies demand that contraception be excluded from coverage, it will be so.

[Tansy_Gold]

130. As a female who will probably be helped by this bill, I oppose it

I haven't even looked at the bill closely enough to determine if or how I will be helped by it. Right now, I have no health insurance, am not affected by abortion or contraception (too old), am not eligible for Medicare (too young ) or Medicaid (too "rich"), and I have pre-existing conditions that put me out of the affordable private insurance range.

Unlike the early forms of Social Security and Medicare, the proposed legislation offers a gigantic gift to private enterprise, and that's why so many of us are opposed to it. Proposals to require people to buy insurance from for-profit entities and fine those people who don't are abhorrent and, dare I say it, unAmerican. I hope someone is mounting a challenge to that on constitutional grounds (and since I'm not a constitutional scholar, I won't start THAT discussion).

The Stupak amendment is a repulsive, misogynist piece of pigshit, and it alone is probably enough to generate my wholehearted opposition to the bill. But that's not the only thing wrong with it.

At the heart is the windfall to the insurance companies, to the very entities who have so often put health care out of the reach of many people.


Including



Tansy Gold

[MNDemNY]

147. Right on.

[saracat]

169. Hi Tansy Gold. Beautifully stated, as always!

[babylonsister]

36. Coming from a male-laughable. nt

[MNDemNY]

38. You support the Bill with the stupak amendment.

Yet you claim to be a pro-choice Democrat. THAT is what is laughable. You are nothing but a shill for this less than mediocre bill. All you care about is passing any bill so as you can declare "victory"

[babylonsister]

40. No, I care about millions of people who will be covered under the bill

who won't have to worry if they get sick, have pre-existing conditions or can't afford health care as it is, women AND men.

You are intent on trashing the Dem reform agenda for whatever reason. You can insist on a bill that doesn't have a chance in hell of passing and hasn't even been introduced, but that's just pigheaded and not reality-based.

You asked me a question, I answered. I don't need your lectures or finger-wagging, and you surely won't be changing my mind.

And with that, I'm done with you. Go argue with someone who gives a shit about what you think.

[MNDemNY]

43. But you are OK with the Stupak amendment.

You are willing to accept it.

[MNDemNY]

68. Just be sure and let folks know what YOU think.

That YOU think it is OK to discard 50 + years of progress on womens rights, in order to get ANY HCR bill passed. Because YOU think that is all that matters. All YOU want is a Rose Garden bill signing.I am very upfront with what I think, YOU should be as well.

[poverlay]

67. So if it came from a woman you would take it seriously? Gender biased much? n/t

[pattmarty]

97. Than this bill? Yes. I CAN elaborate, but I'm presently busy drinking a beer.

[timeforpeace]

23. Touche.

[elehhhhna]

24. 50? More like 50,000

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

65. i find it hillarious, that in order to rationalize that you guys are a tiny minority on this board,

you guys accuse people of being paid operatives. it's the weakest, most paranoid shit i've seen in a long time.

:rofl:

[saracat]

123. Minority? Do you seriously think the majority of Democrats on this board think

They are able to support Stupak? You are delusional.There are many folks that would haver a hard time supporting this Bill is Stupak is still included. Most are hoping it will be removed.

[dionysus]

138. no, no one here thinks the stupak ammendment is good. however, most, at least many,

dems see it as an extension of the hyde ammendment, and therefore will stomach it in order not to torpedo reform entirely. you should know that.

[saracat]

143. Many of us understand that it is much worse than an extension of the Hyde Amendment

You should know that as well.

[dionysus]

64. hyperbole fail.

:hi:

[stopbush]

139. Let's be clear. Those 50 years of fighting are not in danger of being consigned to the scrap heap.

Abortion is still legal in this country. The Stupak amendment seeks to end any type of government funding for abortion, but it doesn't seek to outlaw abortion (I know - slippery slope).

The question is, how does one pay for an abortion, a procedure that costs $300-1200? Well, if you're one of the uninsured in this country, you pay for it out of your pocket (I wonder how many abortions performed each year in this country are performed on people who have no insurance. Anybody know?). If you're one of the insured, your current plan MAY cover the procedure, maybe not.

I don't know what your medical bills are like, but my wife is recovering from cancer, and the treatments and tests she's received in her follow-up costs a helluvalot more than $300. Hell, our co-pays on these tests run into the thousands of dollars.

My point is that while I think it is disgusting that RW Xian wackos like Stupak seek to impose their fuckin' make-believe (ie: religious) ideas on the rest of us, the reality is that for the average person, and for the person who has no health insurance right now (ie: 47-million Americans), to have access to insurance that covers a whole world of treatments for some really nasty diseases while restricting how one will pay for a procedure that costs - at worst -a couple of hundred dollars is an easy compromise to make.

Again - I believe that Stupak must go down and even the Hyde BS needs to be repealed. That is my "principled" stand. But to see this health bill fail over abortion at this point in time when the right to have an abortion is still the law of the land, denying millions of uninsured access to the whole range of healthcare that they desperately need? Well, I'm not so sanguine on that point.

And isn't it possible that a currently uninsured woman needing an abortion might have an easier time paying for it out of her pocket if she had basic health insurance covering her for every other thing imaginable? If she didn't need to wait until she was desperately ill to visit an emergency room for treatment? If she had a prescription drug plan that mitigated those costs to her, costs she is now paying 100% out of pocket?

I'm just putting it out there.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

57. Exactly

It is sad that so many people are shilling for this bill even at this point, I want HCR, I am uninsured and want people to be covered. But to defend this bill the way it is now is inexcusable.

[Garam_Masala]

112. Are you aware that people with pre-existing conditions can be charged higher premiums

by the health insurance industry under the house bill?
At least that is what I have been reading in news.

[goclark]

120. Hi babylonsister ~ I like your style

It just amazes me that some have the need to demand that you take a side.

You expressed your opinion and you will not be Bullied into anything.

[emulatorloo]

21. No. And people I trust say they are going to get it out. Harkin, Clyburne, etc Additionally I

will make calls to my Senators and Reps about it.

There need to be a strategy here.

1. Get Stupak out of the final bill
2. Focus on mounting a successful challenge of HYDE AMENDMENT.

I beleive that strategically people in congress will argue "Hyde is in place, this is redundant/goes to far -- GET IT OUT".

I also believe the Stupakians were GRANDSTANDING for their fundy base. When the language is stricken they will say "GEE FUNDIES WE TRIED"

[MNDemNY]

22. But it seems that the 'bishops" have a direct line to the "hill".

No I think a lot of effort will be made to keep this language in the bill.

[emulatorloo]

25. Well then we disagree. Only 30ish Dems voted for it in the house.

Again I think there are people on the hill who are thinking strategically.

People who know how awful this amendment is, and who are smart enough to get rid of if and still get the legislation passed.

But as I say any pressure we can put on them to get it out is very good.

[MNDemNY]

66. You underestimate the strength of this stalking-horse.

[Lorien]

69. The Stupak amendment did exactly what it was designed to do; shift our

focus from a Public Option to loss prevention. Now we're just fighting to maintain our rights instead of fighting for the change we need- so the power elite get to keep the status quo in the end. It's all smoke and mirrors.

[MNDemNY]

102. Until it passes, then it is coat hangers and blood.

[Egnever]

141. You're fucking ridiculous

how are these poor women who cant pay for an abortion going to pay for the coat hangers and blood.

They did have to pay for that back in the day you know,when abortion was illegal which it wont be now.

Your fucking scare tactics are no better than the wacko lifers and their pictures of fetuses.

Hope you are proud of yourself.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tigermoose]

4. K & R

nt

[timeforpeace]

52. It's so cool to know who the OP is just by the title of a thread!

[ProSense]

6. People don't seem to realize that

this is a huge step in the right direction; that if there are shortcomings, they will be addressed. That is how it worked after Social Security was signed into law in 1935.

1939 Amendments

The original Social Security Act provided only retirement benefits, and only to the worker. The 1939 Amendments made a fundamental change in the Social Security program. The Amendments added two new categories of benefits: payments to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker (so-called dependents benefits) and survivors benefits paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker. This change transformed Social Security from a retirement program for workers into a family-based economic security program. (The 1939 Amendments also increased benefit amounts and accelerated the start of monthly benefit payments to 1940.) The 1939 Amendments thus became a pivotal turning-point. Indeed, the 1939 law is probably second in importance only to the original Act itself in shaping Social Security in America.

link

[babylonsister]

8. I realize that; this bill is far from perfect, but it's very important to

have something on the table we can build on and improve.

And it's also important to get HCR passed so Dems will be in a good place to get elected in the future, which is why the rethugs are fighting it tooth and nail.

Thanks for the link, Pro.

[MNDemNY]

12. How about you, ProSense? Are you willing to answer "the question"

Will you be willing, as sister is to say that women's rights must take a back seat to this "health care reform bill"?? You both should be really proud.:o :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :shrug:

[27inCali]

27. I am willing to choose to support the bill with the Stupak amendment

poor women having cheap and easy access to abortions < stopping thousands if not millions from dying of preventable disease.

both of these things are good and worth fighting for. One out-weighs the other and not necessarily by all that much.

because the other option is letting this bill fail, losing both houses of Congress over it, hobbling Obama for the rest of his term and achieving absolutely nothing in terms of Progressive reforms (including protecting choice) and quite possibly handing the White House to the Repugs in 2012 -does any of this sound like it's going to help advance a woman's right to choose?

yeah, any no one is proud of making the choice. For most it makes us sick to our stomaches that our enemies are so cynical as to use this to divide us. To suggest otherwise is totally unfair.

I don't think there's anything wrong at all with your calculus that it's not worth it to let the amendment stand to get this bill through. But to shame other's for calculating slightly different from you is deeply unfair.

[MNDemNY]

50. Don't care what you think, even though that line is crap.(You really should re-think that)

ProSense has been shilling this bill relentlessly yet will not come clean with an answer.

[dionysus]

73. man, you're rude to everybody, aren't you? you sure must be fun to hang out with.

:rofl:

[MNDemNY]

77. Keep "rolling" it's easier to "take it" when your already on the floor.

[saracat]

124. Cough, Ahem. You really aren't in any position to make that charge

yourself. Civility has never been your strong suit.

[Qutzupalotl]

86. "Apparently only your opinion matters."

Your dismissive attitude toward 27inCali's and ecstatic's excellent points shows an unwillingness to listen to good ideas when they are literally handed to you. You certainly seem unable to say why you think they are bad ideas. Instead, you repeat your own talking points, paying no attention to input. That behavior is too bot-like for a discussion board.

[MNDemNY]

95. too bad the question was directed to another.

I don't care what you think on the matter either.

[Qutzupalotl]

109. Thanks for proving my point.

You get on Prosense's case for not answering your question, but you fail to address anyone else's points when they are uncomfortable for you. Project much?

[MNDemNY]

118. ask a question, I'll answer, spout "points" I'll do as I wish.

[Hekate]

9. Well, that's a day-brightener. Thank you, babs. It gives me hope we can even get rid of Stupak...

... in the end.

Hekate

[MNDemNY]

14. But that does not really matter, does it?

The "bishops" seem to have a 'Hot Line" to the "Hill". Are you OK if the Stupak language remains? Will you still support the bill?

[Roosesvelte]

15. Nice Post

And Obama has been in less than a year. I think he's going to be remembered as one of the greats.

[babylonsister]

18. I hope so, and welcome to DU Roosesvelte!

:hi:

[Roosesvelte]

19. Thanks!

I appreciate the welcome. I'm still learning how to navigate here efficiently, I get lost in the maze a bit.

[depakid]

20. This is a CLASSIC example of what's wrong with America- and why you're headed for 3rd world status

This debate (and others) ought to be about effective public policy- but it's not. Instead, it's all too often whittled down into "victory" or loss by one side or the other, irrespective of the actual consequences to the nation.

This isn't some high school football- go, go go rah team!

But that's what it degenerates to, and I don't see much sign of that changing- except, perhaps ironically, at the Fed.

[ProSense]

26. "This debate (and others) ought to be about effective public policy- but it's not."

It's not? So all the issues people have been discussing are nonsense? Here's the letter the four Congressional caucuses sent to Pelosi:

Quad Caucus Letter to Speaker Pelosi (PDF)

Dear Madam Speaker:

On behalf ofthe Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we write to thank you for working with us to produce a health care reform bill that includes a public option which will increase competition and provide those in the Health Exchange with a choice between public and private plans.

In addition to the public option included in H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care For America Act, we believe the following provisions should be maintained and strengthened in the manager's amendment to ensure that the strongest bill possible will be considered by the House:

• Ensure sufficiency ofsubsidies within the Health Exchange to provide affordability of premiums for those who do not currently have health insurance.
  
  
• Strengthen cost containment provisions for premiums to ensure affordability for those who already have insurance but could lose coverage without mechanisms to reign in spiraling costs.
  
  
• Ensure that Americans in every state are able to take advantage ofthe benefits ofthe bill by explicitly stating that the public option must be available without any triggers or opt-out provisions.
  
  
• Strengthen and create Offices of Minority Health across the Department of Health and·Human Services to address the myriad ofracial and ethnic health disparities, and elevate the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities at the National Institute of Health to Center to bolster and strengthen the capacity ofhealth disparity research in order to achieve health equity in minority health.
  
  
• Ensure that no citizenship or residency verification is required for purchase of insurance in the Health Insurance Exchange.

We look forward to working with you and our colleagues to pass the strongest health care reform bill possible in the House this week and protecting those provisions, particularly maintaining the strongest public option possible, in the conference between the House and Senate.

Sincerely,

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Co-Chair Congressional Progressive Caucus
Rep. Raul M Grijalv, Co-Chair Congressional Progressive Caucus
Rep. Mike Honda, Chair Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus
Rep. Barbara Lee, Chair Congressional Black Caucus
Rep. Nadia Valezquez, Chair Congressional Hispanic Caucus

You may not think people take this seriously, but you're wrong.

[depakid]

28. Nope- for most ordinary people and the corporate media that sways them it's- he won she lost

Policy wonks who are (or were) interested in effective policy that solves the underlying problems (or at least, makes a bona fide effort to do so in a timely manner) pretty much see the writing on the wall. Band aids on a gaping wound, without even a robust public option left.

That ain't going to keep the nation's fragmented health care system afloat for long.

Wouldn't matter, though. Just like NPR reported cases gross civil rights violations against Americans in 2003 as "victories in the war on terror," the media will frame this as a victory or loss for Obama. Actually, some will call it a loss no matter what- or a victory no matter what.

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans will continue going bankrupt- benefits will fall, premiums will rise and business will still have an uncompetitive monkey on their backs.

[ProSense]

30. Telling, your point really isn't about how seriously people took the discussion, but

about your dissatisfaction with the outcome

Band aids on a gaping wound, without even a robust public option left...That ain't going to keep the nation's fragmented health care system afloat for long.

A lot of people don't agree with that assessment. In fact, the CBO estimates the bill will ensure a lot more people have access to coverage, effect savings within the system and reduce the deficit.

[depakid]

31. You're getting lousy policy and all the VAST majority cares about is who "won" and "lost"

But you go on thinking this will do something other than (or even slow your) long decline of benefit, deductibles and coinsurance and the rise of premiums, -and it's drag on the American economy. Time will prove you wrong.

And yep- problem solvers SHOULD be disappointed in that outcome.

[ProSense]

35. Lousy is your opinion. n/t

[MNDemNY]

41. No thems the facts.

You are nothing but an un-principled shill. For you it is all about the 'win" you know it, I know it, and more and more DUers are realizing it.

[stevietheman]

53. No, ProSense is correct. The legislation is good enough for a start.

Pass it!

[MNDemNY]

62. bull.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

58. I realize it

along with far too many on here who would rather see Obama reelected than have a good bill. For 8 years we were the attack dogs but now we are the guard dogs.

[MNDemNY]

61. Lap dogs.

[Lorien]

70. Yep. In the end we see no positive changes. The corporations just

increase their grip on us and ensure that more of our dollars flow to the top. But we cheer over the symbolic "win" anyway.

[mistertrickster]

32. The President said in no uncertain terms that the health bill "would not fund abortion."

Get over it.

[1corona4u]

55. Does it cover Viagra?

Just curious...

I think I'll wait to see if this is a 'victory' or a failure.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mistertrickster]

71. I live in Wichita. I used to protest in front of now dead George Tiller's clinic against the antis.

I think I've earned the right to call myself pro-choice.

But that isn't the issue. Obama knows that the reich-wing will use abortion to kill the bill. So he's not fighting that battle right now.

That's the reality. It makes no sense for us leftists to kill the bill because abortion isn't in it.

We need something ASAP. If we demand perfection, we should just die and go to heaven.

[dionysus]

72. i'm starting to think these guys don't even give a rat's ass about the ammendment. i think it's

their personal crusade to have the administation fail so they can say i-told-you-so. it's just pure, bitter spite, nothing else.

[MNDemNY]

75. Your are foolish.

You are of the ilk that will accept ANY bill called health care reform.All you want is a "win" and a Rose Garden signing ceremony. this will become even more evident as this bill only gets worse, and your support continues.

[dionysus]

80. no, i'd rather save lives while you wait for a perfect bill that will never exist.

i don't give a shit about a rose garden ceremony. you mistake patience and pragmitism with worshipping the president. this isn't even about obama, it's about getting improvement while we have the chance.

contrary to what you believe, no one here worships the man. we appreciate that he's got the toughest job in the world and that he's trying his best. don't mistake the fact that we get really annoyed when a handful of self-righteous complainers start shit day after day with "worshipping"

your strategy involves never getting a bill at all.

does it even register with you that this imperfect bill will save countless lives?

[MNDemNY]

87. How much worse can it get and still win your support?? (Real question)

Is there ANY limit to your willingness to "negotiate"??

[dionysus]

89. if the senate can't get a public option, i'd say it's not worth the effort.

that said, aside from the public option there are some good regulations in there.

if there is no public option i wouldn't be upset with a veto.

the concern is if this fails we get nothing. i'd still like to get the regulations that are in there.

[MNDemNY]

90. Triggered?? Opt out?? Co-ops??

again, real question. And since you ,too seem to have a threshold, are you not a bit disingenuous to call me out for being willing to "let people die"?? Really??My threshold is evil, yours is good?

[dionysus]

91. triggers never get triggered, co-opts don't have a big enough pool to be good.

opt out as a last resort I could live with, but it still doesn't impress me.

but even if a bill gets passed without a public option, to me it is better than nothing, because of the regulations.

and about the millions that will die, we're talking about the house bill that *has* the public option. i bill without the an option will still let those people die for lack of coverage.

[MNDemNY]

94. But you would be OK with a veto? how is that materially different from my position?

[dionysus]

98. i believe it's different in that you think the house bill with it's imperfect public option is worse

than nothing, where i said if the public option gets stripped in the senate bill, and the bill sent to obama has no public option at all, then i would not be upset with a veto. i could still live with a bill like that being passed for the regulation it contains. i wouldn't be satisfied or overjoyed about it.

if a veto happens we'll have to try passing it bit by bit in a big series of bills.

so yes i'd say we have some differences in opinion.

[MNDemNY]

100. We have a difference in the threshold of when a bill is "not worth the bother"

We have the same remedy of "killing the bill" So do you really think that it is NOT disingenuous for you to Say that I am willing to "let people die" when you are as well??I respect the fact that you have some limit to what you are willing to accept, but many on here do not, all they se is a "win" for the administration, damn the costs.I am glad you are not among them.

[dionysus]

103. well, in my opinion, the letting people die thing happens if a bill WITH a public option, albeit

not as strong as the one we prefer, fails.

also a bill WITHOUT a public option will still let people die because there is no exchange to drive down costs, no subsidies for those that can't afford cost of coverage. i'd still take the regulations in the bill, but i would be very dissappointed.

that's what i'm trying to say.

hopefully anything that gets passed will be something we can strengthen or add to later. i think passing a bill will at least give us a chance going forward, and i fear no bill at all kills the chance of getting anything in the near future.

and the real problem, aside from the president, congress, what have you, is the citizenry itself. americans are so ignorant and unaware of what's goin on that we as a whole let it get to the point where corporate money can buy the government. for every DUer that is politically aware, there's 10 dumbasses who don't give a shit as long as they have beer and TV.

if the populace had been educated and aware, we'd be pissed in such large numbers that we never would have let the corporations get the power they have. it's our own fault in a way.


so really us political junkies are just pissing in the wind.

:shrug:

[MNDemNY]

106. and i say there a still needless deaths with the House bill.

there are needless deaths with anything less than universal coverage.Truly universal coverage. You can save 'some" lives with any old bill, even the Republofuck bill would save "some" lives.

[dionysus]

108. i am pragmatic or cynical enough not to be satisfied with, but at least thankful for, anything good

we can get out of it. i'm not giving congress a pass for a bill that doesn't go far enough, but in the political climate we have... there isn't any other choice, and i think it's stubborn to be in the all or nothing camp.

it sucks to be in a situation where you have to accept less than you need.

this problem can only be remedied by getting corporate dough out of government. and the problem with that is, the people that will have to vote to remove that cash... are getting that cash.

i think the president is trying to do the best he can. he's far, far from perfect, but i'm not yet cynical enough to think he's bought off. the legislators however, have a large number of completely paid for senators and congressmen.

[MNDemNY]

121. "the political climate we have" ?????

You mean a big Dem majority in the House, 60 Dem votes in the Senate, and a wildly popular Dem in the White House?? If we don't go "all in" now, then we are misplaying our hand. Do you play poker? do you know what "the nut" is? We have "the nut"!

[dionysus]

132. we have blue dogs and house members that were too bought off or

too conservative to join us in a push for single payer\ robust public option. i hate that it is that way, but apparently it is. oh yeah, and that asshole leiberman.

i agree with you on what the country needs, don't get me wrong. there are too many spineless dems and conservadems. we don't have the ability to vote lockstep like the republicans. normally it's good not to lockstep, but when we need to, we can't.

[MNDemNY]

133. My point is that a push to change that fact is a winning strategy.

I really think the public can be sold on "real health care reform." a single payer system will cost the average american who has insurance, far less than they are now paying in premiums. the boon to business would by incredible.

[dionysus]

134. i agree that single payer is the way to go. if we could get congress to vote the way they should

this whole thing would be easy.

[MNDemNY]

135. Push for it and change congress. If not now, when?

But if we 'settle" the issue is a "done deal" for decades.

[dionysus]

137. i wholehearted agree we need better dems in office. we also need to educate the voters in

the red states where blue dogs live to stop voting against their own interests!

[MNDemNY]

144. Why are we arguing?

:shrug:

[dionysus]

162. um... cause it's GD:P!!111

:P

no seriously, i think basically you think we're at a point where nothing good can be salvaged out of this and i think otherwise, right?

[MNDemNY]

74. The stupak bill goes too far.

Do you support the bill with the Stupak language intact?

[laughingliberal]

117. He said federal funds would not be used to fund abortion

The Stupak amendment prevents insurers participating in the exchange selling to people using their own money to purchase a policy from providing abortion coverage. It goes way beyond the President's promise.

[demwing]

160. No, it doesn't do that at all

There is nothing in the amendment prohibiting people from buying separate insurance policies IN THE EXCHANGE that covers elective abortion procedures.

Whoever said that is does is wrong.

[polichick]

37. It's not a great bill - but I do hope it's seen as a triumph for Obama. nt

[Cha]

46. Thanks babylonsister for

Ben Goddard's article:fistbump:

[Kolesar]

54. Cosgrove at Cleveland Clinic says it will do little to control escalating costs.

Months ago, Dr. Cosgrove, the head of Cleveland Clinic and a consultant to the President, said that lawmakers were "naive". Lawmakers did not understand the topic of healthcare costs.

So this is what we get.

[MNDemNY]

76. That is irrelevant, we need a "win"

Why are you a "hater"?

[Altoid_Cyclist]

107. For the most part, I'll stay out of the line of fire in this thread.

I'm biased towards listening to anything that Dr. Cosgrove says since he saved the life of my wife 12 years ago.
In general, a lot of the policies that Dr. Cosgrove and the CCF have put forth could prevent so many deaths and expensive treatments if only other Hospitals and Doctors would embrace them. I also wish that more Hospitals would adopt the CCF's policies on Doctor's rates of compensation.

I think that this is the interview you were referring to.

Exerpt of interview with Dr. Cosgrove from the Plain Dealer:

You have said recently that you were surprised by how naive lawmakers have been about health-care reform. Can you expand on that?

First of all almost all the legislators in Washington are lawyers, and they started delving deep into health care about January. I've had discussions with a lot of them and I was surprised about the questions they were asking, which seemed sort of basic knowledge.

This is the biggest industry in the United States and this affects 100 percent of the people. To have decisions made on this with just a few months of learning is a little terrifying.

It seems that promoting healthier living wouldn't be controversial. Why isn't that part of any of the reform proposals?

The Cleveland Clinic's Dr. Mike Roizen (the hospital's chief wellness officer) has been pushing hard to get reimbursement for people to be counseled around wellness and that could come up as an amendment. The Clinic has taken a strong public stance against tobacco -- we don't hire smokers -- and we have given our employers membership to Weight Watchers and Curves to help fight obesity. I've also talked with Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson about banning trans fats at restaurants throughout the city, like Mayor Michael Bloomberg has done in New York.

Read rest of article here:
http://www.cleveland.com/medical/index.ssf/2009/08/cleveland_clinic_chief_executi.html


As I said, I'm biased when it comes to Dr. Cosgrove. However, when somebody with his Surgical background and business acumen talks about healthcare, we at least need to pay attention.

As for the HCR debate, I'm still pessimistic about any real change happening but anything's possible I guess. We need to keep in mind that even though the Repukes phrased this as a chance to "Waterloo" Obama, there are more important things than being able to claim victory just for political reasons.

If it turns out to be an actual victory that helps people, then :woohoo:. If it's just a ceremonial victory in a political sense, then... :shrug:

[BlancheSplanchnik]

78. I love this article, babylonsister. Very cool.

I was just thinking the other day how historic this Presidency is. How "When the student is ready, the teacher appears" unfolding before us on a global scale. How Obama is unswayed by "The Eight Winds" of Buddhist philosophy. "Worthy persons deserve to be called so because they are not carried away by the eight winds: prosperity, decline, disgrace, honor, praise, censure, suffering, and pleasure." He takes it in stride and keeps moving forward with his vision.



And, by the way, I'm torn because I agree with many that the ShtuppAss amendment is pure evil, that a bill must not contain such manipulation. But the bill must not be delayed either. I am not giving up my conviction that the public outcry against the amendment will actually be very valuable in ways that go beyond just the issue at hand. As long as we don't give in, as long as we KEEP making alot of noise, even though it seems hopeless and it's tiring.

[Beacool]

79. And he's proud of this?

"As a cynical old political hack and the guy who created the campaign many credit with — or blame for — the demise of Clinton healthcare, I’m supposed to be a little less of a Pollyanna about such matters."

Jerk!!!

x(

As for the bill, yeah let's whoop and holler in joy over the Stupak amendment.

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

153. Unlike some, he isn't a bitter sore loser when it comes to supporting HCR & the President.

As for the Stupak Amendment, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has said the language will be taken out in conference.
Senator Barbara Boxer has also said it won't be in the Senate bill.

Anyone who loudly professes to know how politics is played should know that the Stupak Amendment was a means
to a legislative end: moving the House HCR bill forward. It succeeded.

[change_notfinetuning]

81. The easily fooled are the enemy of the good and right thing to do. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

84. The traveler in casual shoes offers nothing to the drifting ambergris. n/t

[stubtoe]

82. Thank You Babylonsiter for this article and viewpoint.

Too many here seem to forget how historic this accomplishment is, and how long and hard we had to fight to get it.

We can always tweak it later - meanwhile I'm celebrating.

[Andronex]

85. Obama triumph ahead

The title says it all, this is not about a good health care bill, it's about a victory for Obama and by extension big Pharma and the insurance industry. We keep feeding this beast as if ever increasing concentration of wealth and power in fewer hands will somehow serve the American public if the hand doing the feeding is a democrat, but we are the snack...

[saracat]

131. Very good point. That is the heart of the problem.We need real health care

reform. this issue seems to have been co opted as a victory for a politician and a political party no matter who does or does not benefit. I am at the point in my life where the issues matter and I don't give a rats ass about either. I and many millions of Americans need real health care Reform and not just a bone tossed to us with a vague future promise to do better. The implication is that we should 'trust" the democrats and Obama while they stick a knife in our backs. I have always been a democrat because they espoused values that represented the people as opposed to corporate interests, or so I thought. But the absolute cynicism of including Stupak in this bill goes way beyond any pragmatic acceptance I may have of political expedience.

[ProSense]

88. And the insurance industry hates the bill

details

[MNDemNY]

104. ProSense loves it, even with the Stupak language.

She is all too willing to toss womens rights under the bus for an Obama "triumph". 'nuff said.

[frylock]

116. INSURANCE INDUSTRY: don't throw me in the briar patch

[pattmarty]

93. Yeah, sure. The "triumph" will be; pass a shit bill and declare victory.

[MNDemNY]

96. But the Rose Garden ceremony will be wonderful!!!

Some unicorns may even show up!!

[pattmarty]

99. I hope they hang around to help with the 2010 and 2012 elections..........

.................If this bill passes, they will need all the "unicorn" help they can get. AND, I am talking WITHOUT the Stupak amendment in the final bill.

[MNDemNY]

101. I do not understand why "we" do not see that STRONG HCR, yes, even Single Payer. Is a WINNING issue!

[pattmarty]

105. I'll disagree on the single payer issue. Where we are at NOW..........

............., after letting the Republicans get way, way ahead of us all fucking spring, summer and fall, we are kind of stuck now. My belief is that we should have started this after the election not with "single payer", but the much easier to understand AND sell; "Medicare for all". EVERYBODY knows grandma or auntie Em that is on Medicare and they ALL love it. I believe if that was the original plan, we may have had a reasonable chance of passing "Medicare for all" or the very least starting the "Medicare march" of all kids up to 18, then maybe 55-65 etc. Now we are stuck with this total fucking abortion (no pun intended). I say shitcan the bill and go for strong regulation of the insurance companies and down the road when everybody is finally pissed off enough, go for the "Medicare for all" meme.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

110. List for me the 218 reps and 60 Senators that would ever conceivably vote for Medicare for All.

You can play it hypothetically (such as, if we had pushed it all along.) You can even incorporate blackmail. Just list for me enough people that could reasonably be expected to vote for the bill when it was all said and done. You do, however, have to be ready to justify your ability to get the vote on individual Members of Congress. Good luck.

[MNDemNY]

126. I think pushing it in the 2012 midterms is a winning play.

[h9socialist]

111. I agree with this . . .

. . . I just hope he doesn't need the vote of Congressman Stupid . . . I, I, I mean Stupak, to pull it off!!! (Sorry I got confused about the spelling.

[peace frog]

113. I take issue with this statement

"... That will, eventually, be the message America’s voters get out of this battle. They wanted reform 15 years ago — two-thirds said then that they wanted “radical reform.” Now they will happily settle for something a little less."

I'm not settling "happily", not by a long shot. The final legislation may be shot-through with poison pills to be swallowed alsong with the medicine. This opinion piece is a bit too rah-rah-Obama to be trusted, imho.

[unaffiliated liberal]

114. "Obama triumph ahead"

That's fine for President Obama. Too bad it's not a triumph for the rest of us.

If this bill goes to a vote in its current form I'm requesting my elected representatives to vote no.

[jgraz]

127. +1

[winyanstaz]

115. But is getting a bad bill passed really that great?

I am just hoping Obama can pull a rabbit out of his hat and include a single payer in the final bill.....and throw out this attack on womens civil rights as well.
Otherwise I see nothing to be happy about.

[jgraz]

125. It is if all you care about is politics

If you actually want to make people's lives better... then, not so much.

[winyanstaz]

140. thats what I think too..

[ProgressOnTheMove]

119. The victory is very important as it springboards the ability for Pres. Obama to get more things done

and will expand the Congress to reduce the influence of Stupaks a Liebermans.

[MNDemNY]

122. And unicorns will once again inhabit the earth.

[unaffiliated liberal]

129. More "reform" done badly?

If this bill passes in its current form, influence of legislators like Stupak and Lieberman is strengthened, not reduced. They are overriding the will of the American people who are in favor of REAL health care reform in favor of special interests whose profits will increase with this pseudo-reform.

Add to that, cutting Medicare funding is and always has been a goal of the Republicans. Instead of cutting health care industry profits or taxing the few people who control the vast majority of wealth in this country, they achieve that goal in this bill.

This bill is ridiculous. It's the opposite of reform.

[stopbush]

136. What does an abortion procedure cost these days? I'd imagine it's around $500.

Anybody know?

[MNDemNY]

142. You have a point?

[stopbush]

145. Maybe. You have an answer to my question?

[MNDemNY]

146. For the sake of discussion. $500.00

So?

[stopbush]

148. For the sake of discussion, you're willing to scuttle providing insurance

to millions of uninsured Americans not because abortion would be outlawed in the USA (it wouldn't be), but because an inexpensive ($500) out-patient procedure would no longer be covered in whole or in part by insurers who accept government subsidies. Did I get that right?

I know - it's the principle of the thing. Tell that to the uninsured who have to live with your principles and who right now are forced to pay 100% out of pocket on everything from flu shots to cancer treatments to major surgery.

For the sake of discussion.

[MNDemNY]

150. Yes, but the point is the rollback of hard fought rights.

What and who's rights are you willing to give up in order to pass this bill? Maybe surgeries for those over 65 years of age? maybe a reduction of pain meds for folks who are bed-ridden? c'mon, you seem to have quantified it in your own little mind, tell us all what else should be given up in order to pass this bill. For the sake of discussion. (Your utter disregard for the poor is quite telling,) :( :crazy: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[stopbush]

154. Why do you consider government subsidy of abortion a "right?"

A woman has the right to an abortion in this country, does she not?

BTW - funny how you say I have an "utter disregard for the poor" because I would accept a poor person having to pay $500 out of pocket for an abortion if it meant that they had health insurance coverage for everything else. You and "your own little mind" on the other hand, hold uninsured poor people in such high regard that you would see them saddled with the bankrupting debt that attends a thousand different medical procedures so long as you can wave high your $500 "victory flag" of maintaining the status quo where abortions are covered, but millions of poor go totally uninsured.

THAT is quite telling, my ideological friend.

[MNDemNY]

155. Only women who can afford an abortion should have that right?

You have outed yourself as an anti-choicer, I have no more time for your zealot posts. Go pray to your god or what ever it is you do.:puke:

[stopbush]

161. Logic and reality escape you.

Let's look at reality: a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion. She has the right to have an abortion in this country.

If you are an uninsured woman, you must pay for the abortion entirely out of pocket - $500. There's no question about "can I afford it?," because the alternative is to have the baby delivered in a hospital, a procedure that costs $8,000 and up ($12,000 for Caesarian). If you're making the decision solely on a "can I afford it" basis, then an abortion is at least 16 times more affordable than is having the baby delivered vaginally. 24 times more affordable than having a C section.

If you are insured and your insurance doesn't cover abortions, then you probably have to pay the $500 yourself. The alternative is to have the baby, and pay 20% of that $8,000 charge for delivering a baby while your insurance picks up 80% of the charges. That means that you're still on the hook for $1600 in expenses for having the baby delivered. That's a cost that is three times+ what it would cost you to pay for an abortion ($500), so it's still more affordable to pay for an abortion. The "can't afford an abortion" argument also fails here in a strict dollars and cents fashion.

If you are insured and your insurance does cover abortions, it will cover maybe $400 of the $500 cost, so you still owe $100 in a co-pay for the procedure. If you have the baby, you'll have a $1600 co-pay.

So for you, it's unfair to ask a woman to pay $500 for an abortion rather than having to pay only $100 in co-pay. For you, it's all about that additional $400 insurance currently covers.

And - apparently - that $400 is SO important to you that you would kill a bill that provides coverage to 47-million Americans with a myriad of health problems that are not abortions and that run into the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. You are perfectly happy to have these people forgo treatment and die, or have treatment and be saddled with crushing death so that you can preserve "the right" of women wanting an abortion to not have to pay an extra $400 out of pocket for an out-patient procedure.

The basic right is to have the abortion, is it not?

Of course, the dollars and cents argument is a red herring. It's really about choices and safety. Left out of all the equations above are those who cant afford anything and resort to the back alley and the butchers. I'm going to assume that most of the women in such a situation are uninsured to begin with, so the Stupak amendment has no effect on their choices.

Whither your argument?

Who's the zealot?

[unaffiliated liberal]

149. For the sake of women

So?

So what if a woman NEEDS an abortion for medical reasons and she can't afford one? What if a woman's life is in danger and she can't afford an abortion.

THIS BILL COULD BE HER DEATH SENTENCE.

Because Democrats don't have the balls to get the job done.

When that bastard Reagan took office Democrats didn't dare oppose him because the press claimed he had support among the electorate. Bullshit. Reagan had support among the same idiots that make up today's teabaggers and birthers. But the Republicans are cunning. They created the spin then used it to their advantage.

Democrats have REAL support for health care reform yet they are still unable to capitalize on it. I can think of only two reasons why they are unable to institute true reform as they benefit from genuine support; either they are completely inept or they are more interested in campaign dollars from the health care industry than they are in their constituent's real needs and actual wishes.

[MNDemNY]

151. I'm with you! Don't holler at me!

:) :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :hi:

[stopbush]

152. What happens today with life-saving treatments that the uninsured receive?

The hospitals treat them, even though they know they can't pay.

1) They are billed for the entire amount, even if it runs to tens of thousands of dollars. Many people are forced into bankruptcy. A $500 abortion isn't going to force anyone into bankruptcy.

2) The hospitals write off the costs by spreading the costs around to the patients who have insurance and who can pay for the procedures.

Why should abortion be any different? Let the hospitals perform the abortion and 1) bill the person $500 (they'll have years to pay it off). Or, 2) spread the $500 cost per abortion around to others. Surely, it isn't like spreading a $12,000 cost around to others.

[MNDemNY]

156. Back under your rock.

[laughingliberal]

163. I am so weary of the argument that hospitals have to provide life saving treatment

regardless of ability to pay. Emergency rooms are required only to 'stabilize' a patient. If they can't find evidence the person is in immediate danger of death, they dump them right back out that door with a note on the chart. I can't begin to count the number of patients, without insurance, who were turned loose by an emergency room after going in for chest pain. The ER did an EKG and sent them home. When I was in nursing school it was known that an EKG will not necessarily show the damage of a heart attack for up to 24 hours. The protocol was: admit the patient on continuous monitoring; draw cardiac enzymes every 8 hours for 24 hours. But those without insurance are given a perfunctory EKG which shows no damage and cardiac enzymes are drawn (which will likely not elevate for several hours after the heart attack) and the patient is sent home with a diagnosis of GI disturbance. Some have been lucky enough to live for a few days and return when the damage is obvious and get some help but many die before they can return.

With this in mind, I'm wondering how a woman whose life is in danger due to a pregnancy is going to get help through an emergency room. Perhaps if she shows up just at the right time (like while she's in the process of bleeding to death or when her blood pressure skyrockets from toxemia) they might stabilize her but by then it will probably be too late in the pregnancy to terminate. And all that is just IF she manages to get there while in a life threatening emergency and before she is deceased.

[freddie mertz]

157. The Pukes, abetted by Stupak, WANTED to cause this argument...

The whole idea behind the amendment was to divide the Democrats, and it has worked.

Stupak is a mole, intentionally or not.

He and his co-conspirators brought this upon us.

[MNDemNY]

159. Why is irrelevant at this point.

It is just One more reason that this bill is shit. Not the only one.

[freddie mertz]

168. Of course, I agree completely. Dem leadership got trumped...

It's a tale of failure, not a triumph in sight.

[Hekate]

166. Kick

:kick:

[akbacchus_BC]

167. K&R