Well *I* didn't wanna say *THIS* but I will...

[LaydeeBug]

This was the gist of another post on this forum, in this day and age:

"People who oppose this bill over the Stupak amendment----are basically setting up people with preexisting conditions to the death panels already in existence without health reform."

Oh yeah? Well people willing to include the Stupak Ammendment in this bill are basically setting up women in need of reproductive care to the death panels already in existence without health reform. So, since you're fine with rusty hangers and back alleys for women, *I* am fine with your pre existing condition rendering you to a similar fate. We're either in this Big Tent together, or we're not.

And DON'T GIVE ME THAT BULLSHIT ABOUT SIXTY. WE NEED FIFTY AND JOE BIDEN, AND YOU KNOW IT.




On edit for a typo.

[Teaser]

1. "WE NEED FIFTY AND JOE BIDEN, AND YOU KNOW IT. "

Stupak amendment had nothing to do with 60. That's the Senate. Stupak amendment was the House.

[LaydeeBug]

3. I know, but that is the retort dujour..."we can't get to sixty without it". nt

[Teaser]

6. well that's utter nonsense

I'm not certain we can get to sixty, period.

Maybe if we break off the PO, pass the regular plan through the 60 vote process and the PO through reconciliation?

But yes, anyone who says we need something like the Stupak amendment in the senate hasn't been following the news. Even Ben Nelson, who wants some kind of antiabortion statement more than anyone else, doesn't require something as nasty as Stupak.

[LaydeeBug]

7. Oh, it's BULLSHIT is what it is

But just listen to Kent Conrad, or Baucus. Man, I woke up on the wrong side this morning. :hi:

The number is FIFTY AND ANYBODY ELSE SAYING ANYTHING ELSE IS A LYING SACK.

[uponit7771]

2. What's the difference between Stupak and Hyde ammendments? Thx in advance

If you don't know or you say nothing then it sounds like you're complaining based of M$M loud mouths

[rgbecker]

4. Stupak's a Blue Dog Democrat, Hyde's a Republican........

Oh wait, That's not a difference. Sorry.

[LaydeeBug]

5. Your "if-then" scenario in the body of your reply was patronizing to say the least.

But since Stupak says that I can't have access to a provider that provides reproductive health services if they get any federal dollars, IT LIMITS MY ACCESS. But let's pretend for a sec that you're not that stupid to think it appropriate to set up that sort of strawman.

[vaberella]

12. So were you...when speaking of patronizing...but whatever. n/t

[LaydeeBug]

15. bullshit. you're just posting this here because you can't respond to my answer below. How LAME

[vaberella]

42. I didn't see your answer below. Check the times of the posts. n/t

[LaydeeBug]

48. Nah, it's hardly the point. If you're cool with out of pocket abortion expenses for the poor, I'm

fine with you paying out of pocket for your preexisting condition. We're talking about a PRIVATE insurance policy here. We are talking about a MANDATE for a private insurance policy that may not participate in the exchange should it offer private coverage of my private decision about my private parts. I will not compromise or captitulate.

So, if you're fine throwing women under the bus "for the sake of passage" I'm fine with them not covering pre-existing conditions for the exact same reason.

[demwing]

61. You're misinformed

"We are talking about a MANDATE for a private insurance policy that may not participate in the exchange should it offer private coverage of my private decision about my private parts."

Not true at all.

[demwing]

60. Stupak does NOT say that

what it DOES say is that you can not pay for those services with Federal dollars.

The only stipulations against providers are these:
1. The Fed cannot offer the elective abortion services at all. That rule changes nothing - such a restriction has been on the books since 1976.
2. Any provider offering a plan on the exchange that includes elective abortions must also offer a matching plan, identical to the first, except without the abortion provision.

Nothing in the amendment restricts you from purchasing a plan, or a rider, with your own money-on the exchange or off, in addition to subsidized coverage or as a stand alone coverage - through a private provider.

[Zynx]

8. There is a simple, pragmatic issue here.

Abortions in the case of rape or a life threatening medical condition will still be covered. In the case of the others, it is a $500 procedure, not a $50,000 procedure. The main purpose of extending healthcare coverage is so that people are not wiped out financially from health care catastrophes and to ensure that those with life threatening medical conditions do not die from lack of financial coverage. I would rather make sure that the tens of millions of women currently not covered will have their breast cancer treatments covered than not have anything at all. You may say that in an ideal world we should be able to have both. Well, we do not live in an ideal world and if we kill the entire bill over this issue, we may not ever get another chance at this.

[Teaser]

9. premature to be giving up on this

this is important to a lot of democratic constituents. A very loyal constituency.

Not trying to scrape the Stupak off this bill is just bad politics, as it alienates a powerful and loyal voting bloc.

[LaydeeBug]

10. Pragmatism is a poor excuse for violating my right to autonomy over my own body and make a private

decision. So, even a compromise will yield a giant FUCK OFF from me, and a lot of other LayDees I know.

[TwilightGardener]

25. No one has violated your rights. You can have all the abortions you want.

The only violation is that it may not be covered by insurance if Stupak stands. Let's not get melodramatic.

[Jennicut]

32. It is melodramatic. No rights are officially taken away, though one can argue for poor women

it does almost do that by denying them access to funds to have an abortion. I am torn over it.

[TwilightGardener]

33. It's a crappy-ass law, no doubt, because it overreaches Hyde by

having an impact on private insurance plans that may otherwise cover abortion services. But it can be dealt with, or modified. It's not a reason to scrap the whole bill, or to overstate the effects on women, IMO.

[Jennicut]

36. True. And I wanted this bill passed, for various reasons.

I am lucky to have health insurance being that I have diabetes but many in my position are not so lucky.

[LaydeeBug]

41. overstate the effects? Are you KIDDING?

we are either equal, and have the right to privacy, or we're not.

[TwilightGardener]

45. The amendment, while sucky and bad law, addresses neither equality or privacy.

[LaydeeBug]

49. by limiting access, it does EXACTLY THAT, you can't possibly be that stupid.

[TwilightGardener]

50. Wow, personal insults. You're a bit unhinged.

[LaydeeBug]

52. Where's the personal insult to you? Obviously, you've lost touch since you can't argue that women

are thrown under the bus here.

[LaydeeBug]

39. that's not the only thing it does, and you damn well know it.

[Jennicut]

46. That is all this amendment does...and I said poor women would be

penalized for not being able to have the same access to an abortion as middle class or rich women and thus why I think it is a terrible amendment. I am torn because I wanted the bill to pass because I, in fact, do have a pre-existing condition.

[LaydeeBug]

53. so it is now time for us to hold their feet to the fire, and demand they take it out in conference

But I'll not digress one degree for people tryna tell me I need to "let this pass" for the sake of history. I'll back down when this amendment gets 86'd. AND NOT ONE FUCKING MINUTE BEFORE.


All these anti-choice Republicans can kiss my fucking ass.

[Jennicut]

55. I know, I want the President to put some pressure on Congress to get

this thing out of the bill. It is a puke-worthy amendment and the blue dog C streeter who decided to hold the bill hostage really makes me sick.
I don't begrudge your hatred of this amendment.

[busymom]

13. How will you fulfill this mandate?

If a woman claims she has been raped, will she have to prove it first...as in catch the rapist and go to court....or will her word be enough?

Who dermines what IS a life threatening condition and what hoops will one have to go through? As I mentioned in my previous post, I was pregnant when I was dx with cancer. I was offered a termination (which I chose not to have) but would have had to drive 2 hours away to another community in order to have it...AND...was it medically necessary? There was the no camp that looked at the stats and said that in all likelihood the chemo would not hurt the baby and I could continue with the pregnancy and the yes camp that felt that maintaining the pregnancy might impact my ability to get better. Who gets to decide? The woman? The doctor?

And when all is said and done and a decision is made, does she have to see a completely different provider that she doesn't know because of the allocation of federal dollars?

[gravity]

24. The admendment is too strong to be pragmatic

A pragmatic solution would be not letting federal dollars go towards the insurance premiums that would cover abortion. This amendment prevents people making under a certain income to use insurance for their abortions which goes too far.

[vaberella]

11. Funny you should say this...because I happen to be female...

I have my preexisting condition because of my gender. Secondly, I don't like the Stupad and I said as much...however women can stil get abortions, you just have to pay out of pocket...which is more normally the case than your insurance.

[LaydeeBug]

14. "if you're a woman, you can still get an abortion, you just have to pay out of pocket"

the same fucking thing applies to YOUR pre existing condition. You can just pay for it out of pocket.

[Peacetrain]

17. My God...there are no words to express how dumb this post is..

[LaydeeBug]

21. My God, there are no words for how dumb that response is...

:eyes:

[treestar]

37. Get a grip

The price of an abortion is little compared to the price of treating many illnesses.

[LaydeeBug]

43. Go to hell.

The price of an abortion might as well be five million if the woman is poor and has no access. So fuck off. I'm not gonna stand for goal post moving, OR compromise when it comes to a person's autonomy.

[Egnever]

58. one month of meds costs more for millions of people

[vaberella]

There are no words to describe your stupidity.

I'll give you a logical answer. There is a set fee for abortions. $600 or so dollars. My preexisting condition---runs in the several thousands. You're an asshole of the highest quarter. Enjoy your stupidity. It's doing you well.

[LaydeeBug]

51. As there are no words to describe what an ASS you are

$600 might as well be 6 million dollars if you are a poor person. Now let's be clear, I'll write it s l o w l y so you can understand:

RICH WOMEN HAVE NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.

Now let's lather, rinse and repeat, so your stupid ass can get it; here it is again:

RICH WOMEN HAVE NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.

Just one more time so your stupid ass can REALLY get it:

RICH WOMEN HAVE NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.



Since we have established that RICH WOMEN HAVE NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM, this leaves the poor. TRY TO GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD, kay? Oh, and responses like, but whatever (see upthread) are hardly logical. Since you seem to be too stupid to get it. Clearly.

[vaberella]

54. This amendment is for INSURANCE. If you had a brain you'd have a clue.

Ie...poor people are not able to afford INSURANCE. Do you grasp that?! They are not able to afford insurance...only the RICH WOMEN would be able to afford insurance. Further more, and for your information not all insurance provides abortion services. Not all states permit the insurance company to provide it and that's State law not national law. So when you get a clue you can talk.

Women who are poor?! They are things like CHIP and Medicaid. CHIP and Medicaid doesn't allow you to get abortions unless it's due to incest, rape, and health of the mother. That was due to the Hyde Amendment of 1976. If you are advocating for the rights of the poor---get your fuckin' facts before you send bullshit my way. I find this excuse that this is targeting the poor is bullshit. Because the poor have ALWAYS been downtrodden as you said an they have ALWAYS had to pay for out of pocket. This amendment as stupid a it is, doesn't affect the poor in such a way. Under medicaid, or PO---the poor will always have to pay out of pocket and that's the Hyde.

You need to know what you're arguing against because you're sounding like a belligerent fool.

So you're usage of the poor to defend your BS is BS. Because no matter what, the poor has always been forced to pay and this goes back to Hyde NOT Stupad.

Edited to add....but you have already stated you'd rather vote people die of preexisting conditions because of this issue---that you obviously don't completely understand. So there's no point in continuing.

[LaydeeBug]

56. MY God. Teh STUPID!!! It BURNS

as you'd rather see women forced into back alleys *AND* still MANDATED to buy coverage with their PRIVATE dollars.

Again, if you're cool with rusty hangers, I'm cool with you paying out of pocket for your condition. period.

Five hundred might as well be five million if you are a poor woman. I've said it before, and S L O W L Y so that your stupid ass can understand, yet it doesn't seem to penetrate (now why am I not surprised?)

RICH WOMEN HAVE NEVER HAD TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM.

Your inclusion of them is nothing more than a diversion. You see, your pre existing condition might not be something you can afford. It's all relative. A poor person cannot afford an abortion. LISTEN UP, BECAUSE HERE IT COMES AGAIN, STUPAK LIMITS *PRIVATE INSURANCE FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE IF THEY ******PRIVATELY***** OFFER REPRODUCTIVE COVERAGE FROM WOMEN PAYING WITH PRIVATE DOLLARS.

For you to pretend differently is just fucking dishonest, but you already knew that.

[Egnever]

59. um how they gonna pay for those rusty hangers?

that argument is stupidity personified. Are the rusty hanger abortions free?

[demwing]

62. NO! It does NOT!

STUPAK LIMITS *PRIVATE INSURANCE FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE IF THEY ******PRIVATELY***** OFFER REPRODUCTIVE COVERAGE FROM WOMEN PAYING WITH PRIVATE DOLLARS

You are misinformed. Stupak allows providers to offer plans which include elective abortion services through the exchange, as long as the provider ALSO offers identical coverage plans WITHOUT the elective provision.

[zulchzulu]

16. Zap the Stupak Amendment like a wort on someone's nose and...

...tell any Blue Dog or "Pro-Life" jackass they can a hike...

You're right. We need 51 votes to pass this. Line 'em up and vote, goddamnit.

[LaydeeBug]

20. and...I will support this bill. But not WITH it at all. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Forget 50. 218 is the magic number

There is clearly a significant number of Democrats in the House who will not vote for this bill if it pays for abortions.

[LaydeeBug]

23. The Hyde amendment is still the hyde amendment. so bullshit. nt

[freddie mertz]

19. The president has said it should be removed.

Hopefully all those defenders and deniers will join us now in supporting the president.

[LaydeeBug]

22. I support the President in this endeavor. Now let's see him LEAD on it.

I hope he will.

[phleshdef]

26. Man, had you not used the word "lead" in all caps, I totally wouldn't think you had a point.

It did so much to support what you are trying to say.

[LaydeeBug]

28. and had you not pointed that out, I never would have known

how effective it was. Bless your heart.

[LaydeeBug]

27. and I will support him if he leads on it, but he *IS* the leader of our Party, and of the Nation

so sitting on the fence is siding with the opposition.

[dionysus]

29. he just did.

:shrug:

[freddie mertz]

30. On that we can agree.

What we need to do know is praise him for it AND hold him to it.

The problem with too many here is that they will change positions and make excuses on almost any issue just to go along with the president and/or party.

We need to take strong action as constituents to make sure that our leaders hear our voices and KNOW that there will be consequences if they deal away the basic principles of our party.

That second part is something we do not seem to agree on... yes?

[dionysus]

34. no, i agree on that too, but i think some take it too far.

[treestar]

38. I guess "lead" means refuse to sign anything not exactly what you want?

[LaydeeBug]

44. Hardly. But you already knew that.

[Jennicut]

31. I have a pre-existing condition and I am a woman.

I want the bill but hate the amendment. Of course, blue dogs get two things from this by pitting us against each other...no funds used in the public option for abortion or the entire health bill going down. They really set it up well and we all fall for it. Of course the amendment sucks. But what to people like Vaberella do?

[Hutzpa]

47. That should be your slogan

it will work on these jackasses.

Women should start using that.




I'm against discrimination, equal rights for all

[treestar]

35. You're saying abortion is equal to all other health care put together

...

[LaydeeBug]

40. No, I'm saying women are either equal or we're not. Being a women is not a pre-exisiting condition

[liquid diamond]

57. Damn. Too late to unrec.