Health Care Reform Gearing Up

[Richard Dickson]

I pointed that video to some Republican friends of mine. Their response? "The Democrats do it too." So let's respond to GOP childishness with a childish counter-argument. Lovely.

[Brad Millette]

To be fair, showing them the video to try and like rub their noses in it or whatever is pretty childish, too.

[Richard Dickson]

It wasn't to rub their noses in it, it was to see what they thought about it. They're not so blindly Republican that they're above criticizing the party. Which made their casual dismissal a little disappointing.

[The Prankster]

Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky:

"This [Stupak] amendment goes far beyond current law which already bans the use of federal funding for abortions. It goes far beyond the language already in this bill that guarantees no federal dollars are used for abortion. This amendment says that a woman CANNOT purchase coverage that includes abortion services using her own dollars; middle class women, using exclusively their own money will be prohibited from purchasing a plan including abortion coverage in every single public OR PRIVATE INSURANCE PLAN in the new health care exchange. Her only option is to buy a separate insurance policy that covers only abortion - a ridiculous and unworkable approach since no woman anticipates needing an abortion. This amendment is a radical departure from current law and will result in millions of women losing coverage they already have."

[Jake]

I'm really, really, really hoping that the Stupak amendment gets hacked down in the Senate. Come on, guys, don't make me even more depressed.

[Bancroft Agee]

Originally Posted by Jake

I'm really, really, really hoping that the Stupak amendment gets hacked down in the Senate. Come on, guys, don't make me even more depressed.

Better start getting that prescription for Paxil ready. Assuming you can afford it that is.


The Stupak Amendment has more support in the Senate than that farce of a public option in the House bill. Which do you think is going to get ejected in favor of getting the votes needed for passage first?

[Chris Olson]

A friend of a friend on Facebook had this to say about the whole "I object" incident:

It sounds like you don't understand parliamentary procedure (sorry for being so blunt).

The Senate and House are very much NOT an open forum. It's run by strict parliamentary procedure, which is a way to govern who gets to be heard. And not everyone gets to be heard. This is not some "let all be heard" like academics and town halls like to run. Nothing like that, in fact. No one has the "right to speak" or the "right to be heard".

Specific to this issue, there is an order of precedence is that parliamentary inquiries are ahead of the speaker using her time. (http://www.parlipro.org/precedence.htm) So the parliamentary inquiry, which is a question of privilege, DOES supersede her speech. My question is why was the chair not recognizing the point of privilege? I think the Chair was the one who was out of order, and as parliamentarian, that's really really bad. If the parliamentary inquiry had been ruled dilatory (note chair did *not* rule that to be the case), then the Chair's recourse would be to call the sergeant at arms to remove the objector. The chair also did not do that. ... Read More

If you have never operated under Robert's Rules or some other parli-pro format, I could see why you might be bothered. However, having worked in such a system many times, I view this as a failure of the chair, not of the objector. And, the chair is conveniently of the same party as the speaker -- is that a coincidence?

To answer your question directly: the problem I had was with the chair, not with the objector. The chair created the problem, not the objector.

I just want to push him over.

[Richard Dickson]

Okay, so the guy was within his parliamentary rights while being a douche. Fantastic.

[wydren]

If parliamentary rules state that the guy can just keep repeating "I object" over and over like a kindergartner, I'd say parliamentary rules need to change.

[Girma]

Originally Posted by wydren

If parliamentary rules state that the guy can just keep repeating "I object" over and over like a kindergartner, I'd say parliamentary rules need to change.

Are you fucking kidding? The next time the Republicans take control of Congress, I’ll be thanking my lucky stars that shit like this still exists.

[Bryan ODonnell]

Shoulda had them tossed out for that nonsense. The chair probably didn't do it as to avoid the gigantic stir that would have caused. which sucks, and gets back to the point of: why the fuck are we treating these people like adults?

[Seabass Inna Bun]

I don't.

[wydren]

Originally Posted by Girma

Are you fucking kidding? The next time the Republicans take control of Congress, I’ll be thanking my lucky stars that shit like this still exists.

Yeah, I understand their necessity. I just hate that they can be twisted around to somehow validate the childish antics that went on in that video Richard posted. There's really no excuse for that.

[sunwukong]

Definitive proof that many voices are being heard in the healthcare debate.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

And bipartisan too -- it brings a tear to my eye watching democracy in action!

[Jake]

The Stupak Amendment: Worse than you think.

A new study by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services adds some expert imprimatur to what many progressives have been saying all along: The Stupak amendment to the House health care bill--which will prevent millions of women from buying health insurance policies that cover abortion--is likely to have consequences that reach far beyond its supposedly intended scope.

The report concludes that "the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

[Richard Dickson]

Let's hear it for deaf panels! Or not hear it, as the case may be.

Unfortunately, the Leuchtmann’s family insurer, Cigna, has issued “one denial after another,” flatly refusing to cover the $20,000 bill for the implant. In a written statement to the local news station Fox 2, Cigna explained, “It is not unusual for commercial benefit plans to exclude hearing assisted devices,” prompting Dr. Clary to angrily respond, “This is obviously medically necessary. You have a child that has no ear canals!”

We're not talking about someone getting a hearing aid so they can hear the television, this little girl will be deaf her entire life without this procedure.

[pervis42]

Huh, the house passed an SGR fix. Party line vote, which means next time I see a Republican congressman, I'm going to spit in their face. Obstructionist cunts.