Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

direct vs. indirect (rant)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 12:22 PM
Original message
direct vs. indirect (rant)
Direct government involvement:

Citizen: I want an abortion. Give me $500.

Government: No can do. We cannot pay for an abortion.


Indirect government involvement:

Citizen: I am mandated to get insurance. Okay, I want to buy a private plan with my own money that covers abortion. Since the exchange is a cool way to buy private insurance plans, what with the awesome price competition and convenience and so forth, I want to buy an exchange-offered plan.

Government: No can do. We cannot pay for an abortion which means that we cannot allow any choice-friendly plan to be available through an exchange because even though you are the one paying for the actual insurance we spent money setting up the exchange.

The government is supposed to make the exchange superior to the current way of doing things so it cannot be argued that having to go outside the exchange is a meaningless burden. If it's meaningless then why have an exchange?


The government has no obligation to publish your novel. If the government bought up 75% of the book-stores and refused to carry your novel, however, that would not be cool.

We... you, me and everyone here, want MORE government involvement in funding health services. But the way things are being set up (cleverly) that means expansion of theocratic policies into more lives, more decisions. A true poison pill. The more we expand healthcare the more we expand vulnerability to the whims of RW politicians.

So, yes, there is a line to be drawn and for non-trivial reasons.

The argument that this will be fixed later is farcical. Hyde has been renewed every year since 1976 but somehow Congress is going to "fix" an expansion of Hyde next year, or the year after?

Please... the only time to stop this sort of thing is up front. It takes energy to make something law. Once it becomes law then the path of least resistance is to leave it be.

Notice how letting Bush's temporary tax-cuts lapse is described quite casually as a "tax increase." Any future fix of Stupak would be an expansion of abortion! Where are these votes to fix it going to come then?


Arguments that a woman can still buy a supplemental plan on top of an exchange-offered plan are so offensive it is shocking to see them on a place like DU. Of course she can. She can also fly to Monaco to see a gynecologist who uses a speculum made of solid gold... if she has the money.

Plan + supplemental = More money than a plan that includes the supplemented coverage in the first place. This is basic insurance economics.

If healthcare reform is predicated on the idea that paying extra for insurance is not unduly burdensome then what is the point of the whole exercise?

See how this statement sounds: "People on food stamps could buy supplemental canned soup if canned soup were arbitrarily excluded from the food stamp program."

Alrighty then... no problem there!

Applying Hyde to a range of private insurance plans based on an indirect funding argument is not trivial. It is not even just "sausage making." It is a fundamental change in how the existing abortion-funding ban is interpreted and applied.

Since many mass-transit programs have a federal $$$ contribution, why not refuse to let women ride the (subsidized) subway if they are going to Planned Parenthood?

That seemingly nonsensical question follows quite naturally from a change from direct government payment to a concept of a ban on penumbral government involvement.

The slippery slope is real.

The federal government is arguably involved in almost EVERYTHING. There is always a federal money nexus to be discovered.

And any healthcare plan that passes will greatly increase the federal money nexus. That's the whole point of the thing... an increased federal role in national healthcare.
Refresh | +7 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm sorry that I could only bring this up to "0"
Because it's the best statement of the problem I've seen!

I would only add, the point could be more forcefully made that the exchange will be available to even large employers in a few years. The restrictions on plans in the exchange are very likely to hit huge numbers of women when that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Your point is excellent. The exchange is designed to grow
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thanks for your valiant effort to speak truth to ignorance and denial
...on this issue.

The liars and apologists have been exposed for what they are, and they oppose the policy of the president in this case.

Nuff said.

Keep up the good work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. Kick for the night crowd
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 18th 2014, 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC