Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Actual Text of the Stupak Amendment...shall we discuss?

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
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:16 PM
Original message
Actual Text of the Stupak Amendment...shall we discuss?
(a) IN GENERAL -
No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act (or amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unleass an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) Such coverage or plan is not purchased using-
(a) individual premium payments required for an Exchange-participating health benefits pan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(b) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(c) OPTION TO OFFER SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN -
Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separat supplementa coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as-
(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirele with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;
(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and
(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.

http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment



Could someone please point out where purchase of supplemental abortion coverage with private funds is disallowed?

or where Insurance plans with abortion coverage are disallowed from the Exchange?

These are the 2 big complaints I have seen from NARAL and others, but I can find no language in the amendment to support them.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. And just how many women do you think are going to sign up for abortion coverage?
Newsflash: Women don't plan their abortions.

This is an insult.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. you do realize that currently if a woman is getting a subsidy, she has to buy a supplemental plan
that is the status quo.

The only plans that exist today with Abortion coverage are paid for with private funds.

What does the amendment change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. You need to watch more tv. Start with Maddow.
Senator McCaskill took your position yesterday morning and revised it by 8:00 pm last night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. why do I need Rachel to tell me what to think? the amendment is right there.
show me where it states the things many are claiming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jamastiene Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Just because it's already happening
doesn't make it right or ok or acceptable in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Healthcare Reform is not the time or place to attempt to expand abortion subsidies
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
85. Expand abortion subsidies? What kind of rightwinger are you?
Do you think abortion is an industry and that it is subsidized?

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. It may very well cause some private insurers to drop abortion coverage entirely
Rather than going through the hassle of maintaining separate plans if they want to participate in exchanges or the public option.

Why was the Stupak Amendment necessary if it doesn't change anything? They had already agreed to retain Hyde restrictions in the main text of the bill. Federal money was never going to be going directly to abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. they already have separate plans. some cover abortion, some don't.
and again, nowhere in the text of the amendment does it say that abortion coverage is disallowed in the Exchange. It just has to be paid for privately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Most private insurance covers abortions
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 02:44 PM by gravity
With this bill, these people can lose this coverage because these plans will now be subsidized. Hence the status quo is changed

Obama promised with his reform that if you are happy with your current coverage, you can keep it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. why would private plans suddenly be subsidized?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. because people under 88k for family of four are getting subsidies
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. people who currently receive subsidies can't use them to buy abortion coverage
what will change?

is it just that the plan gives more people access to subsidies than at present, so the amendment would affect more people than the current status quo?

how would you solve this?
do you think subsidies should be allowed to apply to abortion coverage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Yes. Subsidies should apply to abortion coverage. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Is it worth torpedoing HCR just to subsidize Abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Is it worth compromising with forced birth nutbags to get HCR.
Any legislative victory they get brings them one step closer to their goal of banning abortion AND contraception. Mark my words, if Stupak stays in this bill they will use it to go after birth control coverage too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. how is keeping the status quo a compromise?
Healthcare Reform will pass, but it will not subsidize abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Because that is how the healthcare bill is set up
If you make under a certain income level, the federal government will provide you a subsidy to help you purchase insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Why do you need insurance to cover a $300 procedure?
Many insurance plans have higher deductibles than that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #37
48. Because you might need a procedure that costs a lot more than that
If you have severely deformed fetus, for example. Which is not covered under the exceptions that Stupak permits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #48
73. I don't believe it's covered under the Hyde amendment either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
77. Newsflash: Women don't plan on needing healthcare.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 06:54 PM by boppers
Wait, What?


edit:typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
87. What would be wrong with signing up for it?
No one plans an illness either, but knows there is a risk. Anyone who knows they could get pregnant and realizes birth control is not 100% effective could sign up. What would be wrong with that?

Besides, everyone is going on about how the abortions are covered by private insurance now. So women have signed up for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
11. Okay so I'm reading and I'm confused. By the way thanks for uploading and starting dialogue.
Okay, I'm not clear on a lot of things. Private insurance would then be allowed to provide payment for abortions. However, women who are using subsidies to purchase private insurance wouldn't be able to have their abortion covered? <----me thinks this might be the ultimate issue.

However, in the case of a person buying insurance without subsidies they are fine, right?! I have no problems understanding the PO. Medicaid does not provide payment for abortions unless it's rape, incest or life of the mother.


All in all abortions are still allowed, but I think the first one might be a problem. That's a good number of women who are excluded from abortion coverage. They should be allowed to be covered if their States allow insurances to have service and if the insurance has that service generally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I got tired of people telling me what to think about it
Especially since many of them haven't even read it.

"However, women who are using subsidies to purchase private insurance wouldn't be able to have their abortion covered?"

Women who are using subsidies to pay for their main plan would have to buy supplemental coverage for abortion with their own money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. How popular do you think abortion insurance is going to be?
There is a stigma against abortion both from insurance companies offering it and women who want to get it. It is one more obstacle for a woman's right to choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. the obstacle already exists for women receiving subsidies.
How do women on Medicare pay for abortions currently?

Answer: With private funds
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. This is about people who are currently on private insurance
who will be dropped coverage because the government will be subsidizing the insurance. There are alternative ways you could use to make sure that federal funding doesn't go to abortion without forcing women to buy separate abortion insurance.

I disagree with the policy of people on medicare but that is a different discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. how? if the plan includes abortion, and is being paid for with a subsidy
How do you do it all in one plan without subsidizing abortion?

So, these people on Private Insurance who have abortion coverage are not currently receiving a subsidy.
Why would they not be able to apply the money they will save on their normal plan with the subsidy to purchase supplemental coverage for abortion?

Or they could decline the subsidy, which they didn't get before, and keep the plan as it currently exists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Accounting
You can show how much it costs to offer abortion coverage and make sure that portion of the funding comes from private funds. Most of the funding for the insurance is going to be privately funded anyways.

And they can still offer supplemental coverage to people technically, but there will be a stigma attached to it which would make people avoid it and insurance companies less likely to offer it. It would be like offering separate coverage for STD's. It would be associated with immoral and reckless behavior so people are more likely to avoid obtaining it even if they are at risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. if that part of the plan is being covered with private funds,
then what is the difference in having a separate plan for your abortion coverage?

It's like having 6 in one hand and a half-dozen in the other.

So basically, your opposition to a supplemental plan is due to a potential for stigma?
why would insurance companies not offer it if millions of women needed it?
You would think it would be profitable for them since most of the women will never use the coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. What is the difference of changing the accounting so it is the same thing
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 04:05 PM by gravity
without forcing women to buy an optional abortion insurance.

The only reason why they want to change it is because they want to turn a medical issue into a political issue. No other medical procedure is going to have to be subject to some ridiculous policy for insurance.

The people who are proposing this amendment know what they are doing and know that it is going to result in less people getting coverage for abortions. There is a stigma against abortion from a big portion of the population, and it is going to affect the behavior of the companies offering insurance and the people purchasing it. It will be making politics an issue for buying insurance instead of a medical one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
38. You are wrong on several counts
Medicaid in several states does pay for abortions in more circumstances that what you listed. Secondly, in many cases people will be paying for the PO entirely out of pocket and still won't be able to get abortion coverage. That is a total 180 from the way medicaid works now with the states which decide to provide Medicaid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Hiya, thanks for explaining. As an aside does anyone have te Hyde Amendment on hand.
I was told that due to the fact Medicaid gets funded by the Fed they are thrown under the Hyde Amendment which means they cannot giving money for other abortion services besides the ones mentioned. If they do, can you point me to which states do this?

So this law prohibits the PO from supplementing abortion even though it's out of pocket? That doesn't make sense, considering the law seems to be for federally funded insitutions. Or to expand, meaning that subsidies that are provided by the government cannot be used for abortion services?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. states are permitted to spend their own money on abortion via medicaid as they see fit
three examples would be New York, Mass, and California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #38
47. do you have any evidence for this?
"Secondly, in many cases people will be paying for the PO entirely out of pocket and still won't be able to get abortion coverage."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
55. the clear text of the bill
It outright bans the public option from providing abortion benefits. As to how many women will be in that position, admittedly that is conjecture. But the public option is geared toward those who can't get insurance elsewhere due to cost which leads to individual purchasers who are going to tend to be on the younger side but might have pre existing conditions and the like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #55
71. can you point me to that text (section,line)? or paste if you have it handy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #71
82. The words administrative costs covers the public plan
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #82
91. in the amendment? in the Bill? where do you see this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. in the text you provided in your very own OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
19. Those interested in this subject have recieved
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 03:20 PM by juno jones
legal information from a variety of sources. They are well-summed up in this article. The devil's in the details.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/9/802519/-What-th...

If you can't comprehend that women trust those sources to give them the genuine article, then you have no empathy nor knowledge of women. If you are indeed male, you've never had a doc shut you down in midsentence while discussing your health via birth control because you were in a 'catholic' facility and one could not speak there. Their fucking 'GOD" is more important than me and my health and my children's wellbeing.

The goal is not abortion, it is birth control. Fuck Hyde, fuck Roe, they're going for Grisholm.

On edit. Read all the articles. This would damage women's rights to terminate physically and mentally debilitating pregnancy like in case of deadly chromosonal and physical defects to the fetus. Their is no mention of mother or infant HEALTH here, there is merely the mention of her death, which thay are allowed to prevent if possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. don't point me to someone else's opinion. the amendment is there.
Point out where it does what that page claims in the text.

That page doesn't provide a single line from the amendment to support its claims.
It just expects you to take what it says as fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. The exceptions are for life of the mother and rape and incest.
Which means that private insurance that gets any subsidy cannot be used to abort a severely deformed fetus. You either carry that anencephalic baby to term or pay for a much more expensive (since it's likely to be done later in the pregnancy) procedure out of your own pocket.

It also means that a pregnancy that threatens a woman's health but not necessarily her life cannot be covered. Again, another possibility of a much more expensive surgical procedure not covered by the insurance that women are MANDATED to have.

That is from the text of the amendment. Not just my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. all that is true of women on Medicare, right now.
anyone getting subsidies has to buy supplemental abortion coverage,
unless the conditions you stated above are met.

This is the status quo.

If you want to expand subsidies to cover abortion, that should be done in a separate Bill,
not via the Healthcare reform Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Wrong. And it's Medicaid not Medicare.
State Funding for Abortion under Medicaid


Funding under Hyde Amendment Only: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming.

Hyde Amendment and Additional Health Circumstances: Indiana (physical health), Iowa (fetal abnormality), Mississippi (fetal abnormality), Utah (physical health and fetal abnormality), Virginia (fetal abnormality), and Wisconsin (physical health).

All or Most Health Circumstances: Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

Noncompliant with the Hyde Amendment: South Dakota (life endangerment only).


http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_fu...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. this is if there is a Health risk. a supplemental plan is necessary if there is no risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. The amendment that YOU POSTED does not allow for exceptions for health or fetal deformity
Danger to the life of the mother and rape or incest only. It's right there in the language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. neither do most of the states you posted
somehow, I don't think you would be satisfied if the amendment left that up to the states.

is this really your sole reason for opposing the amendment,
or would you actually prefer for abortions to be subsidized?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I would actually prefer for abortions to be subsidized
It's called "health care", Dr. Uses-Medicare-And-Medicaid-Interchangeably.

Repeal Stupak and repeal Hyde.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. I would support a Bill that repealed Hyde, just not sandwiched into the Healthcare Reform Bill
How many times will we allow Abortion to be used as a wedge issue to kill Democratic progress?

Abortion should be addressed on its own. Not as part of every other Bill that comes up for debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Then you should be against Stupak too. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. I will not forsake Healthcare Reform to expand Abortion Rights. would you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #51
62. Actually it's the anti-choice Dems who were willing to forsake it
If they didn't get to restrict abortion rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Right.
And the constant strawman (fuck, I've come to HATE that word because of it's excessive overuse on DU) that we who oppose Stupak are willing to kill it is really old. I guess people forget who threatened to "torpedo the bill" if they didn't get their way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #45
53. You need to preach that to the DFLA and Republicans who are trying to use HCR to further restrict
access.

That's what this is all about. Further restrictions. If they cared about "life" and women's health they would have mandated coverage of contraception while they excluded abortion. But, it's not about money and it's not about REDUCING the need for abortions. It's about pushing a religious agenda, controlling women and restricting access.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. is the status quo ok with you, or do you want to subsidize abortions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Sure I have NO problem subsidizing abortions. You do?
I also have no problem with policies paid for with private funds covering the procedure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. the point is that if the status quo is not maintained, the Bill will not be made Law
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 06:23 PM by Dr Robert
HCR is not designed to be an expansion nor a restriction of Abortion Rights.

"I also have no problem with policies paid for with private funds covering the procedure. "

Neither does the Stupak Amendment. See sections B and C
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Stupak HIMSELF said he would have voted for HCR even if his amendment hadn't passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
52. Women on Medicare are well beyond the typical age of pregnancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
36. Is it just me or does it smell a bit troll-y in here? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #36
58. you want abortion subsidized and you will say whatever you have to to get that
how can we have an honest discussion?

every time a claim about the amendment is disproven, you just change what you say is wrong with it.

First, it didn't allow supplemental coverage with private funds. That wasn't true.
Then, it didn't allow abortion plans in the exchange. That wasn't true.
Then, it was a Tax on Women. Not anymore than at present.

Now, your sticking point is that it doesn't cover abnormal fetuses if the plan is subsidized.
I am willing to bet that if they put specific language in addressing abnormal fetuses,
you would just move right along to your next reason.

It really seems like some expected to get Abortion subsidies with this HCR Bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. And why exactly do you personally have against the procedure being subsidized?
It's not about the money. It's far less expensive to cover the procedure than prenatal care and delivery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #59
65. I personally do not have anything against it. As I said, I would support a Bill that repealed Hyde
But we all know that fight will be a knock down, drag out.
We cannot win it and HCR at the same time.

Would you really sacrifice HCR just to subsidize abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #65
67.  I have never advocated killing the bill over Stupak, but I will *NOT* defend it as "OK".

Ever. And you don't have to, either.

Remember that it was the fucking DFLA who threatened to kill it. Not the Dems who oppose Stupak.

There are a good number of Dems who voted against Stupak and for the bill. THAT is the proper Democratic action.

The DFLA can FOADIAF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. I don't want to defend its principles, just point out that many of the claims about it are untrue
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 07:01 PM by Dr Robert
I don't really see why it was necessary, since there was already language in the Bill to maintain the status quo.
Stupak just solidified that and gave conservatives something to wave around when they're asked about abortion. (It's alot easier to show a 5 page amendment than say "Go look at the HCR Bill Section x Line z".)
That's likely why Stupak was willing to vote for the Bill even if the amendment failed. He knew it didn't really do anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. The claims ARE true.
If they weren't and this was a regurgitation of Hyde, then why, oh WHY did ANY Dems vote against it?

Oh right... because it *IS* adding more restrictions and they all knew that and speak out about it. It also, unlike Hyde, would be permanent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #76
79. i have provided evidence from the amendment that disprove several of the claims that have been made.
Do you have any evidence to dispute this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
39. The problem is threefold, and not entirely contained within the amendment
I don't know if you're just being disingenuous, but on the off chance that you're not - and for the benefit of those who haven't seen this in any of the other gajillion threads...

The first, and main, problem is not in the amendment language, but rather in the effect that the amendment has on the underlying bill. Granted, I suspect that none of us has actually read the underlying bill, so we're relying on descriptions of its provisions from a variety of sources. That said, the problem, the "expansion" is here:

No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act (or amendment made by this Act) may be used to ... cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion

In plain English, this means that no plan covering abortion can be purchased by an individual receiving any subsidy. Straightforward enough. But it becomes a problem when you look at the effect of this on the bill. Any plan offered in the exchange has to be available to any purchaser - the "guaranteed issue" provision. (This is, in general, a good thing. It's the provision that prevents insurers from rejecting an applicant due to a pre-existing condition.) But, in conjunction with the Stupak amendment's barring of subsidized individuals from purchasing plans that include abortion coverage, it means NO plan in the exchange can cover abortion, because they have to be available to all potential purchasers. So, even if you're purchasing a policy entirely with your own money, you can't buy one that has abortion coverage, because there won't *be* any that cover abortion.

For the second problem, look at those "potential purchasers." It not only includes individuals, who can certainly look for coverage elsewhere, it also includes employers, who again, would be buying into the exchange with private funds. Starting with small businesses of 25 or fewer employers, but eventually expanding access to virtually all employers. This generally is not the individual's decision. The employer says "In lieu of private insurance, we've bought into the exchange - go find a plan you like on it." Suddenly, none of the employees will have abortion coverage available, and it was NOT THEIR DECISION. And in years down the road, this could be a significant percentage of employees who now have employer-provided insurance.

The third problem is with Section c) OPTION TO OFFER SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN, that offers the "option" of so-called "supplemental insurance or riders" or a duplicate insurance policies that cover abortion. No such products exist now, and nothing in the amendment mandates that they be created. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. The "option" is there... but if such "riders" or duplicate insurance plans aren't available (and I don't believe they will be) any woman shopping the exchange, either by employer decree or by choice, has NO OPTION that includes abortion coverage. It doesn't exist now, and there's nothing to guarantee that it will exist in the future. It's an empty option. Nothing there. Means nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
40. Because they define funds authorized or appropriated by the Act
to include any plan within the exchange under the faulty logic that since federal funds would be used to set the system up that any plan that covered the procedure would by definition be disallowed and hence the need for the supplemental that I assume it creates out of thin air but I'm not a woman so I don't know if such coverage previously/currently exists to be honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. This is exactly what I needed. Thanks TheKentuckian.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 04:54 PM by vaberella
So it's not some insurance (or some insurance plans) or subsidies or what not. That means if the insurance companies, or at least some of them provided abortion services before. Because they are now all under this plan, it prohibits them from providing abortion services, point blank...correct?! If that's the case it clears up a lot more and makes this case even more problematic. One of the ways it was explained didn't note that ALL would be affected and the way most of the rest of the amendment reads it would be the subsidies that woul affect this. But the first line is really here the whole problem lies----and although the rest of the amendment reads like a remake of Hyde, the first lines sets up the trap (ie the theft of women's rights)----the rest mask it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
49. is this defined in the amendment, or is it elsewhere?
(1) Such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirele with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;


I see these lines, but they only refer to how the plan is being paid for.
I don't see where it says the Exchange itself is a subsidy, or how it could be construed that the Exchange is somehow a payment.

at least you agree that a supplemental abortion plan can be purchased.
Many are convinced that has been a outlawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #49
86. If you watched the debate you'd have few questions of intent here
Its not a secret. I have no desire to detract from the bill but I'm not going to pretend away the stated intent of the bill. Just go through some simple logic exercises and it is clear why the language in the underlying bill which had already so strongly supported Hyde that many women were upset was not satisfactory.

Believe what you will but don't pretend no one said anything once the horse is out of the barn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
44. Oxygen helps life. Shall we discuss? Basic physiological needs must be met for an organism
to survive. Shall we discuss?

On sunny, cloudless days, the sky tends to be blue. Shall we discuss?

As has been noted in this thread and countless others (HT to Kentuckian), merely choosing a section does not address the larger effect of this amendment.

Picking and choosing sections to focus on without addressing the entire bill is pointless.

Starting yet another thread on the topic to inadvertently show one's lack of ability to do the merest modicum of research on the topic is pointless at best, obfuscation at worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. that's the whole amendment, Mal
shall we discuss, or are you not finished obfuscating?

This is the first thread that actually has the text of the Stupak amendment.
So many seem to know all about what it will do, but they haven't even bothered to read it.

The purpose of this thread is not to analyze the whole HCR bill, just the Amendment that has people up in arms.



obfuscate n. to act like an ass rather than providing any evidence backing up your stated beliefs



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #46
57. Dr. Robert--there has been a tremendous amount of discussion of the amendment
and how it will affect people overall, using a tremendous amount of information from those who have been part of the larger process.

To bring up the wording of the amendment as a separate piece to focus upon without addressing clearly the relationship of said amendment on the larger bill is asshattery at its finest.

To respond to folks who post information that you don't wish to inform yourself of the information they provide--something done repeatedly throughout the thread is akin to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and making child-like noises.

The adult, responsible thing to have done is to actually read the information provided in relation to the amendment for oneself.

Alas, the choice earlier on has been to be difficult, to be contrary, to play a game of semantics mixed with stubbornness that would make a donkey blush--in other words to detract from the real issues at hand. To muddle...to confuse....bewilder...stupefy...oh, what's that word. Ah, yes. To obfuscate. (Dictionaries are not the enemy to discourse. Dithering is)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #57
63. your V impersonation needs alot of work. you can spin a yarn all day,
but the amendment is what went in the Bill. Not any of the opinion pieces I have seen posted repeatedly.

How can you discuss the amendment, without discussing its wording?

If you can provide anything to back up any of your claims, then please do so.

But in the end, I think it is you who refuses to inform yourself with the information provided.
You prefer to ignore the amendment itself because it doesn't fit in the picture you want to paint.

dithering, eh?
am I talking to Dick Cheney?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hello_Kitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. I pointed out that it excludes both the health of the mother and fetal deformity.
Right there in the text and you pooh-poohed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. I asked you if language was adjusted to include abnormal fetuses, etc, would that be enough for you?
I think you would just find another reason to oppose it,
because in the end, what you actually want is subsidized abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. No, what we want is the religious right to stop trying to add further restrictions to access.
But, you clearly are deliberately missing that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #70
80. What I want is a "health" exception in Hyde, and by extension, the current bill.
Hyde doesn't cover mental health nearly enough.

Personally, I'm fine with federal subsidies for abortions, it's not like it's a procedure people would look forward to having for fun, or out of boredom, etc.... We have enough of an over-population problem already.

As far as "adding" restrictions, they're adding them to something that doesn't exist yet... hence, the status quo argument, where the bill possibly would have *reduced* restrictions, and thus they're "adding" them back in, to keep things the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #44
88. Like actually quoting the bill itself is a bad thing?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #88
93. only to people who would rather make up their own 'facts'
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
68. I don't agree with your analysis. I support the president on this. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #68
78. Obama wants the Status Quo to remain.
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 06:55 PM by Dr Robert
There may have to be slight adjustments to the amendment concerning abnormal fetuses and the health of the mother.
But for the most part, this amendment is the status quo,
not the massive restriction of abortion rights some have painted it as.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
freddie mertz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #78
83. That's why he opposes Stupak. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #83
90. Obama said nothing about Stupak specifically. He just stated that the status quo should remain
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
72. "separat supplementa "?
Yes, I proofread for fun. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. sorry. i took it upon myself to type it out because no other thread had it.
as you can tell, I do the ol' hunt and peck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
81. Someone needs to hire a proofreader, either the NYT's or whomever
typed that up for the House.

I know how processes work...slowly, regardless of the direction they take. I don't think this will pass Senate muster, I don't even know it it's Constitutional, that's above my paygrade. What I DO know, is that plenty of women are pissed off about this, and I don't blame them one bit. However, since I don't think it's going to pass Senate muster, to help make sure, I urge everyone to take a minute away form DU and contact your Senators and let them know how you feel by letters, calls and e-mail.

I'd be surprised, no shocked, if they came here to DU to get viewpoints. Direct contact is necessary if people are serious about this, (judging by the # of threads, I'd say people are pretty damn serious).

Work on them, that is the next course of action. I've sent my thoughts to my 2 Senators, Nelson and Johanns, even though I know where they stand. I want them to know where I stand.

Stop, right now, and ship out an e-mail, let's go to those who need to hear about his...otherwise, we are little more than sparrow farts in a tornado.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
84. It maintains the status quo, just like Obama said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dr Robert Donating Member (381 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. you win the reading comprehension award!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-11-09 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #84
92. Not procedurally, Hyde has to be voted on every year while Stupak wont have to be.
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 Sun Dec 28th 2014, 05:33 AM
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