McCaskill Get’s It Wrong – No Surprise. (bumped)
09 November 2009 1:17 pm by kris
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/McCaskill_Abortion_amendment_no_poison_pill.html#comments
Not only does McCaskill read the Stupak amendment incorrectly, NOW we have Congresswomen that are outraged and vow to stop it?
Hello didn’t they read the amendment before they voted….never mind, that would be expecting them to do their jobs.
What else is in this DOA legislation that House members don’t know about?
Makes you wonder.
This post was submitted by kris.
No tags for this post.
Mrs. McCaskill is so unbelievably clueless on this one that it makes you wonder if she’s being willfully deceitful instead. Hey, but maybe she’s just stupid
Weiner:
Speaking after McCaskill on MSNBC, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said the Missouri senator got the amendment wrong: It prohibits any plans within the exchange from offering abortion coverage, whether or not a person uses federal funds to purchase the plan.
That measures with everyone else I’ve talked to about Stupak.
I vote stupid. If she is being “willfully deceitful” she should be thrown out.
Ogenec has an interesting comment up under Lake Lady’s diary.
Let’s stay with your topic of McCaskill, whose ignorant opinion actually matters in this scheme.
Okay. Sorry.
Hey, it’s your diary, you can change the subject anyway you want!
That’s just my 2 cents on your comment.
I am hoping some Missourians weigh in with comments.
McCaskill has always been a mystery to me. I actually did what I could from CA to help get her elected. Now I regret it although it is difficult to follow her with not living in MO.
Well, considering it’s Missouri, all I can say is for right now she’s actually better than the alternative. Except of course if a libertarian would win, though they’d be totally against federal access to abortion through the exchanges as well and likely universal health care itself (even in its current Democratically offered lame stage). Meaning that only women with private plans through their employers (or the rich who can self finance) would continue to be the only ones with full access, taking Rep. Weiner’s argument to its full conclusion.
McCaskill isn’t stupid. None of these clowns, who claim to represent us, is stupid. They are, however, “willfully deceitful.” They lie us into wars that we have no business fighting. And they lie to keep us fighting those unwinnable wars. It is a bald-faced lie to suggest that spending $104 billion dollars a year for health care will “bankrupt America” yet, spending $680 billion dollars a year on defense will not. It is also a bald-faced lie to say that every one of those $104 billion dollars spent on health care will add to the deficit and our debt, but spending $680 billion dollars on defense will not. The Congress is a pack of corrupt, liars and Obama is their enabler-in-chief. Peace
Could be a different diary I guess but a very interesting read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html
I don’t know imhotep. I listened to the full “debate” on Saturday, start to finish. I can easily describe some of the members of the House as stupid. When I listen to some of the nonsense that spews from their mouths I realize that most at this site would be steps ahead of any of them.
The Catholic bishops are a model. They stood on a line and threatened to not support the bill if they didn’t get what they wanted (while also threatening Boehner, which doesn’t take much).
We have seen women’s access to full reproductive health care erode gradually, because the naive believe it’s not going to ever disappear. By virtue of little access, however, that’s exactly what happens.
Now Casey & Nelson are emboldened, with Stupak giving the pro (selective) life crowd wings. Chris Matthews will be crowing tonight, boy.
TO MAKE MATTER WORSE, THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION, which I know delights conservatives on all sides, but is only going to make costs skyrocket.
The doctor is correct.
Is the House bill better than nothing? I don’t think so. It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we’ve tried health reform and it didn’t work. But the real problem will be that we didn’t really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html&cp
kris, that’s because the people on this blog are, for the most part, speaking their ‘own’ minds and being honest about it. Those on the House floor each had an agenda to push and their words were being twisted to fit neatly into whatever ideology they were wedded to. That is being, as you said, “willfully deceitful” and therein lies the difference. Peace
We will just have to disagree about this imhotep…I heard one Congressman from Georgia (his name escapes me right now) who could hardly put two sentences together. Hardly inspires the image of being bright.
I’m not the brightest bulb okay, but I ran for City Council in my city last year (lost by 100 votes unfortunately) and I was amazed at the lack of critical thinking skills and ability to articulate by some of the candidates. One gentleman that won reelection falls asleep during CC meetings. It amazes me the caliber, or lack thereof, of people who are elected.
and never forget, it’s possible to be both “willfully decietful” and stupid at that same time.
Amen autumnal, amen.
i won’t reproduce my post on LL’s thread here. But I will repost the link to the text of the Stupak amendment: http://documents.nytimes.com/the-stupak-amendment#p=4
It’s only five pages, only three of which are relevant. Read it for yourselves, instead of having others tell you what it says. It says, quote, “No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment to this Act) may be used to pay for an abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage for abortion.” It also goes on to say that a non-federal plan can provide supplemental coverage or a plan that includes abortion, provided no federal monies are used.
It also specifically addresses the exchange by saying that “any nonfederal [healthcare provider] that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section” must also offer one that is identical but does not cover abortion.
In other words, McCaskill is correct, and Weiner is not. The Stupak amendment expressly permits an exchange-participating plan that includes coverage for abortions. See page 3. Yes, it imposes conditions — the provider must ofer a plan that excludes abortion, and the plan must be paid for using premiums that don’t consist of federal money. But it IS possible to buy a plan from the exchange that covers abortion.
It’s right there, in plain sight and in plain English. Assuming you read the language, you don’t need an intermediary. Especially ones with axes to grind.
I’m struck by something David Brooks said on Meet the Press yesterday:
“Rachel’s right, doing nothing is not fiscally responsible, but doing something that adds on without fundamentally changing our current system is fiscally insane….Most health care experts think that this fundamentally does not change the problem with the health care system which is the fee for service system which has been driving up costs for decade after decade.”
We’ve increasingly been hearing about “the Exchange”, if the “Public Option” has been mutated into something resembling Massachusetts’ Health Care exchange as was talked about as a possibility back in August, this will end up being as big a giveaway to Insurance corporations as the individual mandate is. Massachusetts’ Healthcare Connector “negotiates” (lol) and it’s exploded the State budget.
I still haven’t been able to find out what “Public Option” means now after the what may have been done to it during the insanity of the Friday night Democratic caucus.
ogenec,,,you are way to smart to leave out the unspoken elephant in the room. Do you really think insureance companies are going to do that? have different policies for the non subsidized? No they will just stop covering abortions all together.
As for the brightness of my senator..Nothing dumb about Claire. She is being willfully ignorant and therefore deceitful.She is being equally deceitful about her support for the public option. I call her office and I am assured that she supports it but she is waiting to see what form it will take. BULLS*** she will trade it away making the illogical statement that she is worried about the deficit.
The only really good thing I can say about Claire is that she appears to be on some of the contractor graft and corruption within our Military/Industrial complex.
Taylor is correct..Claire is better than many Missouri is capable of sending to Washington. That does not mean I will do a thing for her future election.
Lake Lady says:
09 November 2009 at 12:21 pm
ogenec,,,you are way to smart to leave out the unspoken elephant in the room. Do you really think insureance companies are going to do that? have different policies for the non subsidized? No they will just stop covering abortions all together
____________________________
LL, I don’t know one way or the other. I imagine there will be a market for such coverage, and that some enterprising insurer will try to take advantage of it. But that’s just my speculation, and I could well be wrong.
What I’m reacting to is Weiner’s false statement that the language of the amendment prohibits coverage for abortion in plans offered on the exchange. That’s categorically untrue. I’m all for pushing back on Stupak, but you can make the case for doing so without resorting to untruths.
autumnal..I actually heard David Brooks say while on a panel at the Aspen conference(on c-span) that he is such a deficit hawk that he would support single payer.No one has ever covered that statement to my knowledge.
Dr. Nancy is making a great argument against Stupek right now.She is hot about it! Good for her!
ogenec the only way Hyde has been able to “work” nationally is that the states picked up the slack. We’re not talking about the rich or those able to afford their insurance, we’re talking about the poor, the working poor, the underemployed, the underpaid etc etc.
Trying to say “It’s just Hyde” don’t hunt. It’s Hyde with delusions of master of the universe; it’s Hyde without the state safety-net even being able to pick up the slack.
Sometimes a lose really is a lose. Spin as thy may.
I just got an email from the Sec. of my county’s Democratic Committee. I emailed her back that I was getting ready to re register as an Independent.
autumnal says:
09 November 2009 at 12:40 pm
Sometimes a lose really is a lose.
____________________________
On that, I completely agree. When I said that “I’m all for pushing back on Stupak,” your argument is the one I had in mind. In my view, it’s not consonant with the principle of a right that poor women are effectively denied the right because they have insufficient income to take advantage of it. What good is the right, then? And like I said, money is fungible, so I think Stupak’s amendment is a fool’s errand.
But the anti-Stupak argument is undercut, and demeaned, when people resort to scare tactics and outright falsehoods to make their point. All I’m saying is, have an honest debate about the language of the bill and its effects. Stop saying things you know (or should know) to be untrue. Especially when they can easily be proven to be untrue. It just vaporizes your credibility.
A bunch of people are spinning on this one. But it sure ain’t me.
Lake Lady says:
09 November 2009 at 12:21 pm
You’ve got the gist of it, LL. Well analyzed.
Everyone, I apologize for not being in the comments more today, but I’m currently juggling interviews & talked to people on this, as the fight intensifies.
I URGE EVERYONE TO HOLD YOUR FIRE ON LEAVING, as WE NEED EVERYONE IN THIS FIGHT GOING FORWARD.
I’ll have a critically important report within the next couple hours, which will answer everything.
I can fight as an Indie Taylor. Democratic membership is not required.
ogenec this is reminding me of a few months back where there was the initial anti-choice push on Health Care Reform. I was having this running thing with someone about Hyde and how it didn’t apply.
I don’t really understand what it is you are trying to say. Are you saying stupak is big deal or not a big deal or are you arguing about increments of degree of big or small dealery? It’s a big deal a damn big deal, it’s a deal breaking big deal.
Without Stupak the whole mess has possibly come close to a don’t bother, with Stupak well how does one take a full step back and half a step forward and get ahead?
autumnal says:
09 November 2009 at 1:11 pm
_________________
I’ve tried to be as clear as possible. I don’t like the Stupak amendment (or Hyde for that matter) and I would like both excised. I think there is a strong argument to be made that a right is not really a right when poor women can’t exercise it. Make THAT argument, and you won’t get a peep out of me.
But people are telling outright lies, and that pisses me off. It’s like they borrowed a page from the Rove-Palin playbook. Just now, Taylor put up a thread where WaPo quotes someone as saying that the bill prohibits women paying for abortion out of their own funds. That is a big honking lie. I just cited the stupak language that says exactly the opposite.
I’m interested in stripping, or at least mitigating, the Stupak language. But I refuse to participate in a debate where both sides are lying through their teeth.
Ogenec -
I hope you are right and everyone else is wrong. BBL
As usual, there too many people that don’t take Stupak to its logical, REAL WORLD conclusion. Ogenec isn’t the only one, but he provides a perfect example. Ignorance of the ramifications of public policy drives the debate on the right, which has now infested the Democratic majority.
In what marketplace will the abortion plan you think women will be able to buy going to manifest?
What insurer is going to put together an abortion only insurance plan on coverage that is by it’s very nature unexpected? Or do you expect women in the exchanges to apply for the add-on abortion plan just in case?
How will capitalism support such an abortion only insurance plan, when there isn’t a market to begin with, because abortions are rarely if ever planned?
Only employee based plans without federal subsidies can offer abortion coverage now.
Additionally, Stupak doesn’t provide for abortions in the case of health of the mother either.
Take it even further….
Over time, as more companies come into the exchanges, 2013, 2014, etc., more and more access to full reproductive services will diminish, inevitably making all abortions personal out-of-pocket expenses, which not everyone can afford.
Again, Griswold and Roe mean nothing if there is no access to exercise your civil rights under the law.
People who don’t understand the real life consequences of legislation are enabling this.
As you’ll hear in the podcast I will put up, spotlighting an amazing interview, blacks had the right to vote long before they had the access to exercise those rights, with bigots keeping African Americans away from the polls through other means.
So it begins with women.
I can see that the debate is morphing. First, it was the argument that the bill itself prohibits plans on the exchange from covering abortions. I am telling the truth — and have proved it — when I say that the Stupak amendment does exactly the opposite. It preserves that option.
The argument now is that, even though the option exists, it is meaningless as a practical matter. Fair enough. I have no crystal ball, and so am happy to defer to those who do. I’ve maintained since I came back that I will debate facts, but never opinions. So I have no quarrel with analyses of the practical implications of the Stupak language.
But I will continue to rail against the bald-faced lie that the bill prohibits funding abortions out of one’s pocket. That just 100% untrue.
Could anyone please provide a link for an abortion-only insurance plan that now exists and is available that would also be compatible with the restrictions imposed on exchanges through Stupak?
See this post by David @ FDL. Bravo to this feminist male.
I heard Broooks yesterday on MTP talking about “Most health care experts think that this fundamentally does not change the problem with the health care system which is the fee for service system which has been driving up costs for decade after decade.”
My question – why haven’t he and other Republicans been beating the drums about haviing “fee for service” changes included in the health care bill?
ogenec says:
09 November 2009 at 1:18 pm
I agree with ogenec on this. It is no different to here half truths and distortions from the left than from the right. It’s the norm in the right – not the left. I don’t know about the WaPo quote – but I’ve seen enough in the last couple of days to confirm the dishonesty and reckless disregard for accuracy.
Trying to make enemies of people who are standing on conscience and moral principle is neither smart nor helpful. Working together to get a bill that will protect all people and support all of goodwill is.
Basically, djjl, because they don’t want to get into a piece by piece debate, as they don’t have to. Their side doesn’t want any of the health care reform proposed. Not only because it would give Dems an historic win, but because they don’t understand the point of government.
And by the way, about that open question re: policy above, this is just an aside to the obvious legislative goals of Stupak and the right’s goal, as well as some Democrats to impinge on women’s reproductive health care, which is the bottom line to Stupak’s amendment. It’s the way legislation works in order to impact real life decisions that have life altering implications. By the way, the next thing we’ll hear is that people will also suggest D&C private insurance, because Stupak gets in the way of that, sometimes health threatening procedure, something that Stupak doesn’t recognize as important.
Sorry, didn’t see your last comment, djjl, before I uploaded this.
Hey, that’s fine, but the legislative impact of Stupak is as I wrote it would be, which is why they’re stating it as they are, which in actuality is the truth, not an exaggeration at all.
____________
Let me just add, thanks to all the emails coming in today on this from men & women. I cannot tell you what your support means on this one. I’ll leave you with Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we’re all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that’s the case.” – The Hill
Not only is it an exaggeration, it is a complete fabrication. Look at the FDL link TM supplied. The guy’s argument is that since subsidized plans can’t offer abortions, but insurers are prevented from cherry-picking and have to take on all comers, they can’t offer a plan that includes abortion. Hence, the death of coverage for abortion.
But that scenario is exactly what the stupak amendment expressly contemplates. It says you can have an exchange plan that covers abortion; provided you have one that is othewise identical but doesn’t cover abortion. So there wouldn’t be any discrimation: those who want the abortion-included plan will opt for it; those who don’t won’t.
That’s the premise upon which the guy builds the entirety of his argument. As the premise is 100% incorrect, the rest falls of its own weight. He may be a feminist, but he sure cain’t read.
And I agree with djjl. I am not saying Stupak is a wonderful thing. I hope it gets stripped. But doing something the right way is just as important as doing the right thing. And fabricating scary stories to obtain a good result is not how Democrats ought to behave.
It is hardly “scary stories,” but reality based on how legislation works, the ramifications and consequences of written policy. Hey, but people and voters are entitled to keep their heads in the clouds.
It’s how we got into this position in the first place.
Ah, I wondered how long it would take to go “there.”
um…. Tuck it in, ogenec. This one is on Nancy Pelosi, as I’ve made clear in every single post I’ve written, including this morning.
I have also said I still have hope that Obama will keep his promise to House members, that Stupak will not survive conference. Criticizing him on lauding Hyde, as well as on contraception is something he earned. But what happened in the House is squarely on Pelosi.
So, smooth out your skivvies, big guy. You’re wrong again.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/11/09/paranoia-on-the-right-incompetence-on-the-left/
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/11/08/in-pelosis-house-64-democrats-sell-women-out/
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/11/07/nancy-pelosis-disgrace/
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/11/07/selling-out-womens-civil-rights/
Taylor Marsh says:
09 November 2009 at 3:03 pm
_______________
I’ve turned over a new leaf. So, regrettably, I must decline your invitation to sling insults back and forth. I have written here about the need for proud progressives like you and raging moderates for me to make common ground. I have argued that the way we do that is by listening to each other.
So please listen. I support your effort to eliminate or narrow the scope of the Stupak amendment. But I cannot tell a lie — some of the charges you are making are without substance. That’s just a fact. And it turns people like me off, because we are supposed to be better than that. So let’s focus on what’s real, and try to fix it. That would be the right thing to do, and smart to boot.
I agree with ogenec again – but I do not direct the comments at Taylor but to everyone. I posted very little the last 2 days being turned off and not willing to get into an online fight, that nobody would win, over some of the manipulative, false and disingenuous posts I read here and elsewhere. It is not necessary to demonize another who’s beliefs are different and who are ready to stand on principle.
I don’t have my head in the clouds and I recognize that there are plenty of people against health care reform who are not standing on any principle beyond a concern to preserve power and personal benefit that has nothing to do with preserving health care. But the
US Council of Catholic Bishops in not among them. You don’t have to ascribe to anything about the Catholic Church to be able to respect that.
So, I guess I’ll get out of here before the stoning commences.
BTW ogenec. I’m enjoying your new leaf.
djjl says:
09 November 2009 at 3:53 pm
BTW ogenec. I’m enjoying your new leaf.
______________
I am becoming well-versed in the ways of the Tibetan monks
As for the solution to this, two words: Capps amendment. That’s where this thing is going to end up. Plain and simple.
I spoke to someone at Bart Stupak’s office and told him that Stupak’s amendment would not allow poor women to use the exchange t obtain an abortion. He told me that did not appear the case. I told him that I have stopped giving money to the DNC, DCC, and the DSCC and will only vote for dogcatcher in 2010 and 2012 and not senator and representatives.
Then I said to him, I hope Stupak at least put money in the bill for poor women to get free coat hangers. He politely excused himself after that.
oooops I meant to say that the bill would not allow poor women to get abortions trough any private plan that they could afford. He said it did not appear the case.
In any case this will limit poor women from getting abortions.
Ho-boy, democratz, that must have been some call.
Good for you.
Guess where Stupak stays when he’s in Washington….your not going to believe this ladies. C Street.!?!?!?!?!?
http://gawker.com/5400733/lady+hating-dem-rep-lives-in-famous-sin-dorm
Up is now down and down is now up. Oh Mullah!
OMG Ice, I had no idea. Says it all.
I am not surprised. I wonder how many other Family members have infested the party. Emphasis given on the infest part. This is all becoming VERY clear. I am going to get slammed for saying this but I wonder how deep Obama is involved. Warren. Meeks and all the other bigots he hangs out with finally make sense. I really hope someone primaries him.
Thanks democratz for all you do for all of us.
Me too iceblinkjm. Just can’t figure out who it would be.
How perfect, Iceblinkjm.
Missed it earlier, but went back over comments to see if I’d missed anything I needed to address. Re: ogenec’s point on the Capp amendment, that’s what Pelosi tried, until the Catholic Bishops scuttled it. Nothing like the appetite for power among the religious hierarchy, hey? We can only hope that it’s what wins out in the Senate conference.
It’s more about the attitude expressed in disagreement. I have no doubt that an agreement can be come to that is reflective of the disagreement of both parties.
It is referred to by some as “straw men.” Read what was written – appetite for power? – please. I’m not interested in picking a battle with anyone much less you Taylor. But, I would suggest you go back and read my last couple of posts with an open mind. That said – it’s your site and I understand that. I know that you and I would agree that I none of us should check our principles and consciences at the door. I just asked that people consider what they are saying and the truthfulness of what is said before using it as a curmudgeon against others who have virtually the same goals in mind.
djll you can do something for me. Sign this BOYCOTT petition http://bit.ly/public_option and then get 2 people to sign it, tell them to get 2 people to sign it then you have finished.
Obama wants a health care bill at any price. He could care less about who is covered, how much any given coverage costs or what is or is not covered. Screw him and all the other mealy mouthed Democrats who back him. This ‘abortion’ of a health care bill should not be passed. At any cost. Peace
Done democratz
As for Catholic Bishops getting into it and wanting power, I stand by that, as well as their maneuvering to obliterate the separation of church and state.
Taylor Marsh says:
09 November 2009 at 11:12 pm
I agree with you. Power is always part of the equation. If morality and principle are so important to the bishops, how come we didn’t see the same force coming from them to not get involved in war? I didn’t see them calling up their members to push Congress against going into Iraq. Certainly a lot of killing went on there, including children and the elderly. Now that is something I mind my tax dollars going for but it seems we don’t have a choice in that.
Why do conservative Catholic bishops support war but oppose abortion? Because they act like hypocrites.
Bingo lynnette.
I called Marcy Kaptur’s and Ms Dahlkemper’s congressional offices today and express annoyance that women want to thrust other women back to the 19th century by banning all ways to pay for abortion under the new health care structure. I snarked to both offices staff about at least the amendment should have given money to poor people for free coat hangers and that the coat hanger industry would prosper if this amendment gets included into law.
I also complained about the 10 year closing of the prescription drug benefit coverage gap aka the donut hole. When I called both offices I snarked will the bill at least give retired and disabled people funeral money so at least if they die for the coverage gap to close that their families won’t have to worry about funeral costs.
I also said that single payer or medicare for all should appear the public option and that should get paid for completely by taxes and that people using this public option should not have to pay a cent for medical care or medications.
FEH!