I actually think it’s face-saving. Stupak agreed to vote with the party as long as he looked like he got something out of his grandstand. Obama and Pelosi are happy to give him this gesture (which changes nothing at the moment) in order to get Stupak and his people to fall in line.

are you kidding me? His EO makes everything so much worse! He wasn’t “forced” - he caved, or rather, this was the plan all along. They’re a bunch of woman haters, let’s face it.

it just makes it crystal clear that Hyde needs to be repealed.

But will that be enough now?  If Hyde is repealed, will the executive order still prevent women from receiving healthcare?  Has Barack now set a precedent where future asshole presidents can strip civil rights with executive orders?

Nancy Pelosi is the closest thing to a democrat with a spine, and she’s not enough by a long shot.  Women have been thrown under the bus with this bill, which is barely insurance reform.  If it passes, I bet insurance stocks go through the roof, as suddenly the IRS will force everyone to buy private insurance without any true guarantees of coverage.

Plus, pre-existing conditions are only waived for children until 2014.  Then maybe the adults can get in on it.

This is not a good bill, and Obama should have been fighting back in August.

Am I the only one who hears “Stupak” and think’s it is a political action committee for stupidity?

arrgggh! misplaced apostrophe ... cat editor appeared, sorry.

Abortion rights were won by attacking the issue culturally and changing minds, allowing politicians to follow.  Pro-choicers have moved more towards remembering advocacy, but you don’t change attitudes overnight.  If we want misogynists to stop getting elected, we have to work on making misogyny shameful.

The bill’s not perfect.  It’s sadly conservative, reflecting the body politic.  But it allows for things to move in a more liberal direction.  It’s our job to make that happen by making it easier for liberals, real liberals, to win elections.

Am I jumping the gun putting up this post before the final vote?

Yes!  Run outside, turn around three times and spit!

Am I the only one who hears “Stupak” and think’s it is a political action committee for stupidity?

I wasn’t thinking it before, but I certainly am now.

This was a face saving move.

The EO does nothing but recognizie exisiting law. However you feel about Hyde, it is the existing law. The EO will not restrict abortion rights any further than the situation we have already.

So either Stupak knows this doesn’t do anything and he’s just looking for an excuse to vote for the bill, OR he’s as dumb as a bag of hammers. I think it’s a little of both.

With regard to the whole bill, when Social Security was first passed it covered few workers (mostly railroad workers) and was borderline racist.

It was improved later, we have to do the same with this. But it is a start.

ben:  no. That’s what they’re telling you, but that’s not the case. It extends Hyde and restricts access to care women have at the moment. See this:

Cynthia Kouril has some serious concerns about the consequence of the EO’s language:

It is unbelievably overbroad. Think about the literal meaning of these words: “Nothing in this Act shall require an otherwise qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, to cover any items or services to which the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser has a moral or religious objection.” [emphasis mine].

Not just abortions, birth control, HIV treatment, tubal ligations, vasectomies, what about circumcisions? Some people think mental illness is actually demonic possession, do they get to opt out? Some people think that drug and alcohol addiction are moral failings, not illnesses—can providers opt out of those treatments?

So I’m reading the message boards on my city’s newspaper website - the St. Louis Post-Dispatch - and some of the teabagging lunatics are talking about starting a literal Civil War over HCR.  There’s a few commentors saying that they have “inside information” that the National Guard will storm Washington, DC and arrest the President if he signs this into law.

They’re in full blown meltdown.  These people are openly advocating treason now.  They’re not even hiding the fact that they want to have a lynching party on the South Lawn now.

it is a “start” for poor women dying in back alley abortions, is what it is. I can’t believe people are apologizing for this heap o’ crap.

If this doesn’t anger people that have any kind of social conscience, then what would? Obama has outed himself as a total sell-out liar with this one. Recognize.

Shit, double-posted that last comment by accident.

liviaclaudia - current health insurance providers can already opt out of offering those services as it currently stands, even if this bill doesn’t pass.  There is nothing requiring insurers to cover abortion right now.

All the EO says is that private insurers cannot be compelled to cover abortion if they don’t want to.  And as it currently stands, they cannot be compelled to cover abortion if they don’t want to.

I don’t like that the caving had to be done to get the bill over the 216 vote threshold, but Amanda’s right - the EO order doesn’t restrict abortion funding above and beyond what the existing law under the Hyde Amendment already does.

Private insurers can continue to cover abortion if they want to, provided that they are not doing so with government subsidized plans.  If you are getting your insurance through an employer or you purchase it privately without government subsidies, you will still be able to have abortion services covered, if your plan offers such coverage.

Stupak = Stupid.  He was mollified by an Executive Order, to be signed after the bill was passed, using his vote to carry it through.  There is absolutely nothing which prevents the President from rescinding the executive order anytime he wishes.

Also on the stupid line are Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, each of whom won big concessions for their needed votes to reach sixty in the Senate.  Now that the bill goes to reconciliation, where only 50 Democrats plus Vice President Biden are needed, no filibusters allowed, the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase will be dropped, and their votes aren’t needed.  There’s nothing more pathetic than a bought-off politician you don’t need to keep paying.

Executive Orders are just that, ORDERS.  Technically Obama’s EO on the matter can’t change how the bill works without the fellow groups working to secure its implementation do it.  In all honesty, if it came to a court the EO would more likely be construed in very narrow views and thus it was more-or-less lip service to Stupak. 

Anybody who puts “precedent” into EOs needs to rethink what they actually mean.  In most cases presidents have overturned previous EOs and implemented completely unheard of changes through them.  The EOs really can only effect the government systems the Executive branch has control over and not much else.  Since the president controls the army and federal branches on a technical level he can change the way laws are executed slightly but it is clear Obama simply gave Stupak lip service to get his vote, reunite the party on the abortion front and get health Care passed.

The great health care war is over.  The democrats have won.  It only took us 60 years to catch up the rest of the organized world.

Hyde is already the law. Defeating this bill wouldn’t change a damn thing about abortion law. Passing it won’t, either.

You know, to the people who are against the current wording of the abortion issues on the bill: Did you think we were going to get any better than this in the current political climate? Right now we take what we can get. For November, we campaign for people willing to commit to make it better. We’d probably have been better off had Obama not spent 2009 trying to work with the GOP, but that’s water under the bridge. Once again: take what we can now and come back for more later. Once people start seeing real benefits from the bill, we might just be able to get the public option and some change on the abortion front.

(or, alternately, two words: Ralph Nader. Unless you think Kucinich was a sellout for changing to a yes vote despite his stated (and entirely reasonable) exceptions, remember that a quarter of this country is stark raving nuts.)

DTG same at the Times-Dispatch. What is it about newspaper comment threads in third and fourth tier cities? They’re worse than YouTube threads, and completely infested with wingnuts.

Xeranar:

Saying the Democrats have won is like saying “Mazel Tov” to the groom for showing up to the wedding. Getting anything at all is a victory, but it’s still a long way to go before we get everything we *need*.

Right, Brian, which is how SS and Medicare started.

Hell it was how Civil Rights reform started, The 1957 Act was half-hearted and toothless but got people thinking about the issue and moved the ball down the court for 1965.

arrgggh! misplaced apostrophe ... cat editor appeared, sorry.

We won’t call you out on the cat doing your editing if you don’t call us out on the tequila worms doing our writing…

DTG same at the Times-Dispatch. What is it about newspaper comment threads in third and fourth tier cities? They’re worse than YouTube threads, and completely infested with wingnuts.

You find them in the weirdest places. Lots of American winguts on the guardian website, and that’s a British left leaning paper. Why they need to voice their opinions there is beyond me especially when lots of them would have difficulty find it on a map and they’re all goddamn socialists over there anyway.

219-212

The bill now goes to the White House, where it will be signed into law by President Obama in a few days.

Holy shit, they actually got a bill passed.

I have been telling everyone I know to read the third volume of Robert Caro’s biography of Lyndon Johnson. The hundreds of pages on the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act provide a nice inspiration for what must happen next. To paraphrase, it’s half a loaf, but to those who need it, it’s hope.

WF

Pharmakos:

The Grauniad is a UK-*published* paper. It’s really hard to argue that newspapers with a legitimately global reach like the NYT, Times of London, or even the Grauniad are really local or even national anymore, when people around the world routinely read and cite them.

re: Safari iPhone problem: what you wanna get is the Perfect Browser 3 app.  It works much better, and costs $0.99.

I think its still a good bit more local than the nytimes. Also the Grauniad? I’m looking at that and I think its not a typo because you did it twice. Am I missing a joke?

What sucks is I can’t even comment on non-political topics there. Like, say, there’s a review in the paper for the new Chevy Camaro, and I comment that “Hey that’s a pretty nice car, good power but the interior could use some work”, is replied to with “OMG IN THE FUTURE SHE-BEAST PELOSI AND COMMIE OBAMA WILL BAN CARS AND FORCE US TO ALL BUY SEGWAYS!!! U HEARD IT HERE FIRST!!!”

I’m just glad the bill passed.

As for Stupak, fuck him, he’s getting a primary challenge anyways.

OK, here’s some irony.

After the bill passed, Republicans made a motion to recommit in a last ditch effort to force the bill back to committee.  Rep. Stupak took to the podium to argue in opposition to the motion to recommit, and someone in the House gallery screamed “babykiller” at Stupak.

These people are nuts.

Pharmakos:

The Guardian was notorious for a long time for very, very poor spellchecking.

They’re nuts, and their little temper tantrums and rent-a-mobs are all for naught.

Democrats shouls take up immigration reform next. Republicans would further alienate the youngest and fastest growing demographic in the country, it would make the Teabaggers go right off the deep end of racism further alienating moderate white swing voters, and it would divide the greedheads and racists who wuld fight eachother.

Basically, it would be a several month long Macaca Moment for the entire Republican Party.

OK, so the House just passed the “fix bill”.

What they passed earlier was H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  This is the exact bill passed by the U.S. Senate in December, so all it needs now is President Obama’s signature to become law.

What just passed is H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.  This bill still needs to go back to the Senate to be passed using a 51 vote majority, though Republicans are going to try to get the Parliamentarian to object to the use of reconciliation procedures.

Regardless of what happens next, HCR is now definitely going to become law, even if the Republicans somehow manage to throw a monkey wrench into the Senate passage of the Reconciliation Bill - though it’s unlikely they will succeed.  Once the fix bill passes the Senate, we’ll get a final product that is more progressive than the original Senate bill, and less progressive than the original House bill.

I’m really surprised people here are able to support this bill, especially after the EO was tacked on.

I guess it is okay to tell women to shut up and get under the bus.  Sad.

Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’...weren’t you just over at Sadly, No?

And nobody ever saw you post there before, either.

Keep on trollin’!

Actually, I was already under the bus, with health conditions that likely made me ineligible for affordable private insurance, and with a group health plan that doesn’t cover abortion except in life/health-threatening cases. So though this bill doesn’t change the first problem right away, you’d better believe I’m thankful tonight. And will wake up tomorrow and keep the pressure on about the issues important to me, including fixing the second problem. I know it won’t be easy, but this is the only way forward.

And it was damn crowded under that bus already.

Not actually a troll, Ben, longtime lurker.  This is just one issue that really got me upset so I decided to post.

So if I raise issues that are not popular I’m a troll?

I’ll keep that in mind.  Glad you could set me straight.

Shiny,

Does it not bother you that you won’t be covered until 2014, at best?

Dana, don’t waste our time coming in here with your standard-issue talking points about issues you have no actual knowledge about. I’m sure the so-called “pro-life” hate groups sent you out the “alert e-mail” meant to keep[ you in a constantly obsessed state of froth and rage, but a real pro-lifer like Stupak just outed you as another ignorant pro-death fanatic whose hatred of your fellow citizens and their need for health coverage seems to have few moral boundaries you aren’t willing to cross.

You’ve allied yourself with the dishonest hate group known as the Republican party in this fight, proven your willingness to lie in support of your cause, and you just met your Waterloo. That’s what happens when you look at a bunch of hateful ignoramuses and birthers calling themselves the “tea party” and decide, “this is the group of people I want to associate myself with in a quest for power!”

A little more knowledge, and fewer dumbass ignorant talking points next time, Dana. At least make a bare effort not to humiliate yourself.

No, you’re a troll when you post on multiple liberal sites, for the first time, acting very, very, very CONCERNED about something Democrats did.

You’re a teabagger troll pretending to be a leftist, and I’m done feeding you.

Notice I didn’t call Caren a troll, even though she disagrees with me.

Really, Tyro?

For one who complains about others using “dumbass ignorant talking points” you might want to check your facts first and not humiliate yourself.

I am amazed at what thin skins some people have when you disagree with them.

Ben, so a person can’t get energized by an issues and post on blogs they often go to?  Nice to know there are rules in place to label such a person a troll, even if they believe in something.

Last time I checked the sites I was on were progressive/liberal where such discussions were allowed.  Won’t make that mistake again.

And the name is not Caren.  But nice try again.

Wow.  I think I’m about to free up a lot of time…

How about the Nelson amendment? That stayed in, and is much worse than Stupak’s.

How about the Nelson amendment? That stayed in, and is much worse than Stupak’s.

As far as I know, the Nelson Amendment was less restrictive than the Stupak Amendment.  Both amendments are anti-choice, but Stupak was the more anti-choiceier of the two.

oh god! a concern troll with an Aah Megamisama themed username has announced that because of our rude disregard of zir VERY IMPORTANT CONCERNS, she will stop reading a blog which none of us actually write for!

and nothing of value was lost.

honestly, if we’re comparing sexist content, I’d say a harem manga/anime series wherein an impossibly perfect woman and her catty bitch relatives squabble over the nicest of the Nice Guys (TM) who only manages to remain sympathetic because the narrative and universe is centered around him and how SUPER NICE he is is way more damaging than this EO.

I mean, I’ve actually met people who find this romantic, and who develop their idea of how relationships should be based on this moeblob harem anime bullshit. they are tragic figures, but more of those exist than people who will be following the law differently based on this executive order.

I should add that, on balance, I’m in favor of the this HC reform bill and it actually does make some family planning services more affordable and aims to do away with the insurance policies that discriminate against women. But I haven’t heard a lot about the Nelson Amendment. It’s still in there as far as a I know, and it would have an effect on women’s reproductive health choices far beyond Hyde because it would make it easier/cheaper for insurers to simply stop offering plans that include abortion coverage. Thoughts?

Heheheh. urdsama takes a break from playing the “oh, the bill isn’t liberal enough for my precious sensibilities” to defend our local right-wing ignoramus. You just couldn’t restrain yourself and had to let the veil fall from your face, didn’t you?

The Nelson Amendment is NOT in this bill. It was defeated in the Senate, at the time the called it “Stupak Light”

Abortion law remains unaltered.

karpad,

How does an anime character have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

I love the personal attack, though.

It might be nice to actually have people engage the issues at hand and not go with this type of approach…

The troll also posts at the local “not larry sabato” politics blog as a rabid wingnut who calls himself “Change”, but posted under a variety of aliases, including “Not an Allahbama Lemming”.

Either that, or he has the exact same writer’s voice and style. Maybe its a wingnut thing$

Tyro and Ben,

You make quite a team…of going in completely the wrong direction.  But if it makes you two feel better to think a progressive would not have severe issues with this bill and the EO, then go ahead and paint me as a repug.

I do wish you would at least try to address the issues at hand, however.  As much as I am getting bashed around at SN!, at least some of the posters are addressing the debate.

Ben D: OK. I don’t know why I thought it was still in there. Thank you.

The EO doesn’t change anything, but it’s still sad that we can’t seem to take a step forward in this country without all getting together saying that abortions are bad. It’s a scary reminder and a symbol of how much power anti-choicers have and how single-minded they are about hating on women. I still don’t get how there are so many people willing to take their one and only stand on denying other people access to life-changing medical procedures. And I know it’s not rational, but it angers me so much more when Dems are rabidly anti-choice than when Repubs are.

” And I know it’s not rational, but it angers me so much more when Dems are rabidly anti-choice than when Repubs are.”

I don’t care what they say, I care what they do.  I’m perfectly happy with throwing the Stupakians a “compromise” piece of paper which is actually meaningless to secure their support on a useful vote.  Not everything is about the overton window.  I think the expansion of healthcare coverage as a result of this bill, on balance, does much more for women than that little bit of anti-abortion language hurts them.  Moreover, I’d much rather make this compromise than compromise something else substantial and get a couple republican votes.

Abortion law remains unaltered.

Not quite. The EO extends the Hyde Amendment rider to apply to the health insurance exchanges and does away with the annual renewal requirement*; it also mentions new protections (on top of Church and Weldon) for institutions and individuals who practice substandard medicine. (I can’t imagine what these new protections might be. On top of refusing to refer the patient for treatment, you can now shove her out the door and be protected from malpractice?)

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(emphasis mine)

*Scott Lemieux disagrees with my assessment.

An EO is a hell of a lot easier to rescind than legislation is because you only need one person to do it.  Look at the DADT nightmare we have to deal with because the president can’t use an EO to override legislation passed by Congress.  However, Congress can override an EO with a two-thirds majority.  They can also refuse to provide funding to enforce the EO, and that only needs a simple majority.

(Yes, Truman used an executive order to integrate the military, but people forget that the Supreme Court found a few years later that it was unconstitutional for the president to override legislation passed by Congress when Truman tried it again to settle a miners’ strike and every Supreme Court since then has agreed.)

Oddly, I agree with Dana—I think the EO is basically meaningless because Obama can change his mind and rescind it at any time.  Of course, I think that’s a good thing.  It’s far, far better to have this language as an EO than as legislation.

Disappointed anti-choicers are passing around this video—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr68joWr1E—of Stupak at a town hall last year saying he’d be willing to vote for HCR even if his amendment didn’t pass.

I’m happy with the EO.  It basically involves Obama saying, “You know the anti-abortion stuff already in this bill?  Well, it’s in this bill.”  Stupak gains nothing.  It’s nothing like his horrible amendment from November.

Watching the Stupak press conference was fun.  Reporters were politely asking “um, so this does… nothing, right?”  And Stupak was saying, “No!  it does something!  It affirms that what’s in the bill, is in the bill!”  And the reporters were like, “Yeah, like we were saying.”

I think his caucus was fraying towards voting for the bill.  He didn’t want to lose them and lose face.  So he “delivered their votes” in exchange for something worth approximately $0.

An EO is a hell of a lot easier to rescind than legislation is because you only need one person to do it.  Look at the DADT nightmare we have to deal with because the president can’t use an EO to override legislation passed by Congress.

That’s only partly true.  It’s correct that Obama cannot unilaterally eliminate DADT by just issuing an EO.

But he could issue an EO putting a hold on all DADT dismissals until the matter is resolved legislatively.

I’m generally happy with President Obama.  But the frustration by the LGBT community on his punting of this matter does have merit.

Watching the Stupak press conference was fun.  Reporters were politely asking “um, so this does… nothing, right?” And Stupak was saying, “No!  it does something!  It affirms that what’s in the bill, is in the bill!” And the reporters were like, “Yeah, like we were saying.”

I still think it’s hilarious that the wingnuts have become so unhinged that a GOP Congressman shouted “babykiller” at Stupak when he was speaking in the House gallery.

Also the Grauniad? I’m looking at that and I think its not a typo because you did it twice. Am I missing a joke?

It is a name bestowed by the satirical magazine Private Eye. The Grauniad was famous for its typos.

urdsama wrote:

And the name is not Caren.  But nice try again.

Sigh, further proof of trollhood: if you’d even bothered to read the rest of the thread, you’d know why this comment of yours misses the point entirely.

As a observer from the UK, I was delighted to wake up to the news that the first step of HCR has passed. Very pleased for you all! I was disturbed when I first heard about the EO mollifying Stupak, but on closer examination it’s better than I expected. Fingers crossed it can be rolled back as more progressive reforms are enacted over the next few years.

Also, what a difference the medium makes: the radio played a clip from John Boehner’s “Shame!” speech and it sounded like a spontaneous passionate outburst. Then I found a clip online (CBS) and saw he was reading out a prepared text, and his body language was very going-through-the-motions.

In trying to guess the probable effect of the EO and Hyde Amendment, it would be that private insurance companies which offer abortion coverage would have to remove it from their standard plans—if any such exist—and offer it solely as an additionally purchased rider.  If the rider is just $5 a month, it might make economic sense; if it’s $50 a month, the people who could afford the rider will be making enough to just pay for an abortion out of pocket; abortions really aren’t that expensive in this country.  That’s the only way I can see to keep government subsidies for lower earning workers from occasionally paying for abortion coverage.

There could be a depressing effect on the number of people with abortion coverage because some people wouldn’t want it a matter of record that they might want an abortion, and others would figure that an unintended pregnancy simply isn’t going to happen to them.

DTG, I’m not sure you get what “the House gallery” means:  it’s where observers go to watch House proceedings.  The chap yelling “baby killer” was a rowdy citizen who was removed by Security for his various antics.  The scary bit is that a couple dozen GOP Reps seem to have applauded his shouting.

Hoboy. I would not want to be Bart Stupak right about now.

He’s an idiot. He overplayed his hand. At the end of the day, all this really reaffirmed is that liberals are done coping with loose cannons, and that conservatives will call you a “hero” right up until the exact moment that your use to them expires. Which leaves exactly zero room for Stupak next election cycle.

Urdsama, perfect is the enemy of better.

The chap yelling “baby killer” was a rowdy citizen who was removed by Security for his various antics.

No, that was a different incident where a spectator yelled “Kill the Bill” and was escorted out. The person who yelled “Baby Killer” during Stupak’s speech is a House Republican. Apparently quite a few of his colleagues know his identity but are refusing to name him.

Dana,  first trimester abortions are not that expensive if you consider a few $100 inexpensive.  Second (or third) trimester abortions can be extremely expensive. 

I, too, thought that Nelson’s language was in this bill.  Isn’t that what Stupak’s grandstanding was all about? Saying that the Nelson language, which is much more far-reaching than the Hyde amendment, was still not strong enough for him.

The democrats better get waaaay out in front on explaining what this bill does if even a fairly well informed group of people like those here aren’t entirely clear on what’s in it.

This bill is only “throwing women under the bus” if you think the only some women count.  If you count women on Medicaid, women in the armed services, federal employees, and uninsured as women—-and I do—-then they’ve been thrown under the bus for decades now.  I’m angry that women will lose existing abortion coverage.  That is significantly moderated by the realization that millions of women will get birth control (so they don’t have to have abortions in the first place!), cancer screening, diabetes treatment, you name it.

Watching the Stupak press conference was fun.  Reporters were politely asking “um, so this does… nothing, right?” And Stupak was saying, “No!  it does something!  It affirms that what’s in the bill, is in the bill!” And the reporters were like, “Yeah, like we were saying.”

Yeah, he needed a man to say it.  Seriously, Pelosi was never going to be good enough. 

When you need the cooperation of complete sexists, sometimes you’re simply going to have to admit that trying to get them to see women as people will be so much work and so hard and so time-consuming and so unlikely to work anyway that it’s time to exploit their sexism.  Sexism is, after all, a weakness.  And it’s one they took on for their own reasons.  I’ve done it; most women have.  When I’ve needed to convince a man of something and he was being skeptical, I’ve completely borrowed another man’s authority to win an argument.  That’s what happened here, on a big scale.

Yeah, and that was one of the funny things about the press conference too, Amanda.  Stupak hardly ever mentioned Pelosi by name.

My feeling at the time was that he didn’t want to admit that he’d been pwned by a girl.  Which is what happened—Pelosi had a much stronger hand, especially with the Byrd rule restricting her ability to give Stupak anything, and as usual she played it perfectly.  Much better for Stupak to act like he won a concession from Mr. President, even if the concession is obviously empty.

Dana, first trimester abortions are not that expensive if you consider a few $100 inexpensive.  Second (or third) trimester abortions can be extremely expensive. 

Although I’m not thrilled to be agreeing with Dana , his point stands that if you could afford a $50/month abortion rider on your health insurance, you could afford an abortion. If an abortion costs $300 in the first trimester, then six months of paying $50/month and you’d have paid for it—a woman is usually fertile for about 40 years, so the math clearly indicates that a $50/month rider would not be worth it.

Abortion riders would only be worth getting if they’re very, very cheap, and of course, there *would* be a chilling effect—women in deep red states might not be willing to buy the rider because then their HR department would know that they’re the kind of person willing to get an abortion, abused women whose husband’s insurance is covering them might not be able to get them because the husband won’t buy the rider as a way of ensuring that she can’t abort, many employing institutions will exclude the rider from their package, parents who think their babygurl cannot possibly be having teh_sexx yet won’t buy the rider for their 15-year-old because Mom has had her tubes tied and then will be stuck with the bill in full when it turns out that yes, she is having sex… but, on the other hand, soulless corporate monstrosities would prefer their workers to not be pregnant, and many corporations might quietly pay for a cheap abortion rider for all employees because it’s so much cheaper than the insurance cost and absenteeism associated with pregnancy. I mean, if I could pay $5/month out of my corporate pocket to make sure that none of my employees would take a 6-week leave (paid or unpaid) and then be sleep-deprived and off their game for several months, unless they deliberately choose to take on that burden… keeping one female employee from an unwanted pregnancy would pay for a $5/month abortion rider for 100 employees for a year. And you can’t pressure women to not have kids right now because the office needs them too badly nearly as effectively if you aren’t paying their abortion insurance.

I’m disappointed that there was no Putzpak amendment requiring no federal funding of ED drugs or treatment. I don’t think that’s right, either, but it would have been fun to make them vote on it.

His point stands that if you could afford a $50/month abortion rider on your health insurance, you could afford an abortion.

Having an abortion rider would be pretty useless for someone who thought she might need a first-trimester abortion, but it would be incredibly useful for someone who is afraid that a wanted pregnancy might go wrong late in the game.  Not only is a third-trimester abortion more expensive, it also often goes along with a whole host of other medical problems that, if you don’t have abortion coverage, you would have to pay for out of your pocket because they would be “abortion related.”  Right now, only 18% of abortions are paid for by medical insurance, and they’re mostly those more complicated (and more expensive) ones.

An abortion rider would be like car insurance.  You probably won’t use it if you put a ding in your car that would cost less than your deductible to repair so you just pay that amount out of pocket, but you’re going to be very glad to have it if you have an accident that totals your car.  I could see it being something that a woman would buy in the first stages of trying to get pregnant so she would be covered in case of a disaster.

Alara wrote:

Although I’m not thrilled to be agreeing with Dana grin, his point stands that if you could afford a $50/month abortion rider on your health insurance, you could afford an abortion.

Don’t worry: you’re only agreeing with me on math, not on policy.  The Pandagonistae will forgive you.

Nothing to forgive Alara for as she is being both humane and logical, with sound facts.  The medical emergency abortions are still allowed [per the EO wording DTG (I think) provided in another thread] and no sane company should buy any coverage for its employees and their family members that does not include it, for the reasons Mnemosyne and Alara detail.

It’ll never happen, but in my fantasy world, the President shows up at the signing ceremony with this EO, shakes hands with Bart Stupak, and calmly tears the EO in half and stuffs it, unsigned, in Stupak’s jacket pocket.  “I lied,” he says, “because you’ve been lying for months about this bill.”

There is nothing requiring insurers to cover abortion right now.

But, surprisingly to me, most of them now do.  The EO and the HCR give insurers all the impetus they need to stop covering them.  Why should they EVER pay for anything?

Women aren’t going to buy abortion coverage for 2nd and 3rd term abortions.  Those abortions are for medically indicated reasons—the fetus is malformed/disabled/dead, the pregnancy is threatening the mother’s life, etc.  They are wanted pregnancies that go wrong.

No one wants or expects their pregnancy to go wrong.  Being “open to pregnancy” doesn’t mean you think your baby isn’t going to make it.

More than that, these women will believe that their choice of ending a pregnancy gone wrong will be covered.  They don’t understand that unless you are actively hemorhaging or have a raging septic infection, many insurance companies don’t consider it medically indicated to terminate.

That’s right.  Dead fetus?  Just carry it until you deliver or it becomes septic and you can have a hysterectomy.  Or pay thousands out of pocket.  It’s your “choice”.

Fuck it.  It makes me so mad.

I really hope that we end up with some health care reform eventually, instread of just enforced insurance coverage.  I’m afraid to hope anymore.

I’m very interested to see what health insurers stock prices do today: I’m betting they soar. 

I’m also very disturbed by the government forcing people to buy for-profit corporation’s product.  It’s just wrong.  The insurance companies were due to fail by market pressures anyway.  More and more people cannot afford to purchase their ‘services’ and more and more doctors are going to cash-only or concierge service.  It was going to topple, but painfully.  Now the for-profit insurance scam has been propped up with threats from the IRS.

I might just sock the next person who cries “Socialism”.  This HCR bill isn’t socialism.  It still treats medical care as a market-driven problem with market-driven, for profit insurance as it’s centerpiece.  Single payer is socialism.  A Medicare buy in or even a public option have socialistic points.  But this bill? It’s no Great Society/FDR movement.  It’s downright NIXONIAN!

As for Stupak?  Some Texan congresscritter calling him “Baby killer” should let him know where he lies.  Liberals hate him for holding up health care and conservatives hate him for caving in.  He’s got nowhere to run anymore.

”  There is nothing requiring insurers to cover abortion right now.

But, surprisingly to me, most of them now do.  The EO and the HCR give insurers all the impetus they need to stop covering them.  Why should they EVER pay for anything? “

That’s not surprising at all.  Paying for an abortion is waay cheaper than paying for a pregnancy and birth.

Alara (75):

Although I’m not thrilled to be agreeing with Dana , his point stands that if you could afford a $50/month abortion rider on your health insurance, you could afford an abortion.

Pace Dana, I don’t agree with you on the math either. If you have a steady income, it’s easier to plan for $50 a month every month than a $300 expense you wll incur an unknown number of times at unknown intervals over 40 years. It can be better to be out $50 every month than to find that all of a sudden you have ten weeks at the outside to scrape together $300.

Though, you could accomplish the same thing by simply startinga savings account and putting $10 (or whatever) in it from each paycheck, to at least get a headstart on that $300 when you do need it, and not get the insurance company involved. Again, I’m not saying $10 is trivial for everyone, but a regular expense is easier to adjust to than an ongoing one.

Caren, the Hyde amendment already gave them all the impetus they needed to stop covering it. I don’t understand this argument about how the EO changes anything. It’s a reiteration of the government’s commitment to the Hyde amendment, which sucks but was already the status quo. See the comment on the cost of the alternative; the fact that many insurance companies cover abortion is presumably because there’s actually a profit-driven motive to do so, and I don’t understand how HCR will change that.

Hershele, women don’t have one to two abortions a year, every year!  Dana’s math at least recognizes that!

Plus, pre-existing conditions are only waived for children until 2014.  Then maybe the adults can get in on it.
This is not a good bill, and Obama should have been fighting back in August.
Comment #3: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes on 03/21 at 08:14 PM

Actually, adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance through temporary (until the exchanges go into effect) subsidized high-risk pools starting 90 days from the passage of the Senate bill into law. So, not perfect, but better than a sharp stick in the eye, also speaking as one of those with a pre-existing condition leaving me uninsurable, better than the status quo.

Indeed, from a purely predatory point of view, insurance companies, were they not concerned over having to appear at least a bit discrete to mollify the wingnut religious types, would be more than happy to cover abortions for a nominal fee.  Unlike said aforementioned wingnut religious types, they actually do tend to read the scientific literature and recognize that the health risks for a properly-performed abortion are minimal compared to the risks of pregnancy and birth.  If I were running an insurance company, ignoring the women’s rights issues completely, I’d have abortion coverage included for free as part of the basic package.

Because, again unlike the wingnut religious types, I know that the vast, vast majority of women don’t go out and get knocked up for fun just to have a medical procedure.  As I recall (and I may be wrong), on average a woman in the US will have between 0.25 and 0.33 abortions during her lifetime.  Assuming the majority of those get an abortion in the first trimester, and that a first trimester procedure costs on average around $400 in the US (this bit I was able to dig up), that means for that majority of abortions I’m looking at spending an average of about $100-$133 per woman over her entire lifetime.

Comparing that to the cost of a number of routine Ob/Gyn visits, the fairly routine ultrasounds, and the costs of delivery and recovery itself, which my company would likely be on the hook for if the pregnancy is carried to term…well, if insurance CEOs and boards of directors aren’t among the biggest supporters of reproductive rights, they need their heads examined.

Just to elaborate on the last point a bit, if I had an abortion rider on a health plan, say $100 a year, and that a woman keeps the plan for 30 years or so, I’m getting, on average, $3000 for $133 of anticipated expenses.  Even counting the more I’m going to have to spend for the fewer late-term abortions, the very very few hospitalizations as a result of an abortions, and the few women who have multiple abortions, it’s still basically printing money for me.

I’m very interested to see what health insurers stock prices do today: I’m betting they soar.

If you still think the stock market knows anything about what makes a healthy company and what legislation will help or hurt a company, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.  The stock market thought that Enron had a terrific business plan and that Lehman Bros. had nothing but AAA-rated investments.

Stock analysts are going to gamble that the legislation will help insurance companies.  That’s what they do in the giant Vegas casino called Wall Street.  But their bet is not guaranteed to pay off any more than the $50 you gamble on poker is guaranteed to pay off.

Mr Ostropoler wrote:

I don’t agree with you on the math either. If you have a steady income, it’s easier to plan for $50 a month every month than a $300 expense you wll incur an unknown number of times at unknown intervals over 40 years. It can be better to be out $50 every month than to find that all of a sudden you have ten weeks at the outside to scrape together $300.

You are assuming such tightly wound expenses that there’s virtually no wiggle room, and I doubt that’s the case with most people who could voluntarily subscribe to a $50 a month insurance rider.  Heck, most people who have sufficient income to take a voluntary $50 a month additional insurance rider probably have friends from whom they could borrow $300 in a pinch.

If their money is as tight as you suggested, it makes far more sense to not spend the $50 a month for the rider, and just be careful about contraception.

At my house, we compare the people in the stockmarket, buying and selling in sudden feverish spurts, to our guinea fowl who all followed each other to a single food dish even when three others were full only to all chase after the first to discover another bowl so that they were all, once again, eating from the same source. 
(Past tense because we are now down to a single guinea hen and chickens rather than a one time high of 30.  Guinea fowl are loud, especially the hens, and frowned on in residential neighborhoods for that reason.)

Pace Dana, I don’t agree with you on the math either. If you have a steady income, it’s easier to plan for $50 a month every month than a $300 expense you wll incur an unknown number of times at unknown intervals over 40 years. It can be better to be out $50 every month than to find that all of a sudden you have ten weeks at the outside to scrape together $300.

I’m not sure about that.  I mean, while I realize that some women do have more than one abortion in their lifetime, are there really a lot of women out there having numerous abortions in their lifetime?  I would be shocked if even 1% of women have three or more abortions in their lifetime.  But maybe I’m rong on that.

Anyway, while getting hit with a $300 pricetag on short notice can be a heavy burden for some people, it still works out to be far less expensive long-term to not have the abortion rider on your coverage - assuming it would tack an extra $50/month onto your premiums.

3 abortions in a lifetime (which does occur, but is extremely rare) would run you around $1,000 or so.  20 years of $50/month payments to have those potential abortions covered would run you $12,000.  And I imagine 99% of women don’t have three or more abortions in their lifetimes.

The math doesn’t lie.

Dana’s a douchebag, and I hate to agree with him on anything, but he’s correct in saying that for the vast majority of women, it would make more sense to pay for abortion out of pocket than to pay an extra $50/month to have the cost of a potential abortion covered.

I’m also very disturbed by the government forcing people to buy for-profit corporation’s product.  It’s just wrong.

This is the only thing (well, besides continuing the Hyde Amendment) that I don’t like about this bill.  I understand the logic of having every kick in so that everyone can get health care, but I really dislike a government mandate to buy it from a private, for-profit company.  Don’t see any way around it, though, until/unless we get single-payer.

I understand the logic of having every kick in so that everyone can get health care, but I really dislike a government mandate to buy it from a private, for-profit company.

It’s the “for-profit” that’s the actual problem, not the paying to a private company.  Many healthcare systems, including Japan, Switzerland and Germany, have people pay their premiums to private companies.  The difference is that those companies are non-profit and heavily regulated.

It’ll never happen, but in my fantasy world, the President shows up at the signing ceremony with this EO, shakes hands with Bart Stupak, and calmly tears the EO in half and stuffs it, unsigned, in Stupak’s jacket pocket.  “I lied,” he says, “because you’ve been lying for months about this bill.”

“Stupak, remember when I said I’d sign your order last?”
“yeah, yeah you did say that!”
“I lied!”

and then Obama drops him off a cliff.

It seems to me that if a person who otherwise would have had to pay, for lack of insurance, $125 a pop for regular doctor appointments will now be able to get medical care much cheaper and more often, then they will be able to handle better the uninsured abortion, should birth control fail them.
It’s kind of like how my food stamps don’t always stretch the entire month, or I have to buy some items from a place that doesn’t take EBT; but for having EBT, I am therefore able to pay for the other items, as I didn’t have to buy all my basics out of pocket.