by Dan Gilgoff at US News & World Report, this article just posted includes a quote from yours truly...
As abortion rights groups slam Democrats for allowing a strict prohibition on federally subsidized abortion coverage in the House healthcare bill, antiabortion groups find themselves in an usual position, given Democratic control in Washington: They're cautiously optimistic about a victory on healthcare.
"The momentum is in the pro-life direction," says Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List.
Sizing up chances of the House's antiabortion language surviving in a final version of a healthcare overhaul, she says, "This is now a doable project."...
For some antiabortion activists, a healthcare reform victory would mean that the Stupak-Pitts amendment, the House's ban on abortion coverage in a public health-insurance option or in federally subsided healthcare plans, survives in a final healthcare bill that lands on President Obama's desk.
Other abortion foes, meanwhile, have set their sites higher, aiming to totally scuttle a healthcare overhaul. With the possibility of enough antiabortion Democrats in the Senate or House refusing to sign off on a bill that includes a softer abortion funding ban than Stupak-Pitts and with many abortion rights Democrats vowing to refuse to support a bill with Stupak-Pitts, some conservative activists are hopeful about bringing healthcare down altogether.
"It looks to me like there's a stalemate, and if there's a stalemate, we win," says Jill Stanek, a prominent antiabortion activist and blogger who is based outside Chicago. "I think we have a good chance of winning on this, of shutting down the entire healthcare bill."...
In a weekend interview on CNN, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested that Obama wanted to alter the Stupak-Pitts language because he felt it moved federal abortion policy in the antiabortion direction. "I think it's fair to say the bill Congress passed does change the status quo," Axelrod said, referring to the House bill. "But I believe there are discussions ongoing as to how to change it accordingly."
But MI Rep. Bart Stupak, the Democrat who coauthored the antiabortion amendment, warned today that an attempt to strip the amendment would jeopardize its chances of surviving a second House vote. "They're not going to take it out - if they do, healthcare will not move forward," Stupak told Fox News this morning. "We won fair and square. . . . That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about."
Not all antiabortion activists are hopeful that Stupak-Pitts will survive. Tom McClusky, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action, predicts the amendment will be stripped in negotiations on the bill between the House and Senate - and that the Democratic leadership can convince antiabortion lawmakers to support that version. "They can do anything in conference," says McClusky, referring to the negotiation process. "Pelosi is a very good speaker, and she knows there are ways to get people to vote your way, like earmarks."
But Deal Hudson, a conservative Catholic activist who advised George W. Bush, predicts that Stupak-Pitts will survive - and will politically benefit the Democrats. "The Democratic Party needs to regain a pro-life voice that is not constantly quashed by pro-choice interest groups," he says. "So this is a huge step forward for them."
Hudson still opposes Democratic-led healthcare plans, partly because he thinks they'll give courts an opportunity to mandate federally funded abortion in a government-run healthcare plan. But like other antiabortion activists, he's hopeful that Stupak-Pitts will survive. "If a bill comes out of the Senate, the amendment will be in it," Hudson says. "Then it's up to the Democratic leadership to convince the ardent pro-choicers that they're better off with an abortion funding ban than without a healthcare bill."
What is the world coming to?
Atheists for Palin!Posted by: hippie at November 17, 2009 7:07 PM
"If health care reform fails, we win". Apparently Jill has her health insurance coverage and doesn't give a hoot about anyone else, who may be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, loss of employment, etc. How selfish.Posted by: Bystander at November 17, 2009 7:38 PM
Oh, yes, and $500 billion dollars worth of Medicare cuts to the elderly, leading to rationing, reeks of generosity.Posted by: carder at November 17, 2009 7:59 PM
It doens't take an entire health care bill to overhaul insurance. There are steps that can be taken to ensure medical coverage can be better.
I thought Bill Clinton signed into law that pre-existing conditions must be covered. Anyone have info on this?
"If health care reform fails, we win". Apparently Jill has her health insurance coverage and doesn't give a hoot about anyone else, who may be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, loss of employment, etc. How selfish.
Posted by: Bystander at November 17, 2009 7:38 PM
Yeah, it's Jill's fault that the health care bill amounts to little more than a new regressive tax. If it weren't for Jill's selfishness everyone would have wonderful healthcare. They would all be healthy, but the sheer power of her will is making people suffer. Oh, the humanity.
You know, if you stop and think for a minute, you could figure out that birth control and abortion are so cheap already, that there is really no reason for them to be paid for by insurance anyway. Insurance is for big expenses. Having insurance pay for small expenses jacks up administrative costs because then you have paper pushers adding as much cost to a $500 bill as they do to a $5000 bill. If we didn't have any insurance or insurance companies, health care would cost less because we wouldn't have to pay the insurance companies, their employees, execs, shareholders, yada yada. Having insurance for only really big expenses is a wiser cost/benefit calculation, because fewer healthcare dollars go to admin and more go to treatment. The current bill will increase administration costs for years BEFORE it expands coverage.
Like I said, this health care bill is turning died in the wool atheists more and more towards even the likes of Palin. The Obama illogic is too much to bear. It's pretty bad when Obama is so bad that the atheists would prefer a fundie to Obama.Posted by: hippie at November 17, 2009 8:06 PM
In a conversation with my chiropractor, (which he brought up, btw), I asked him what would happen to his practice should this sham of a healthcare bill pass.
First, he is hoping that chiropractic will not be a mandated service.
If it is, he will consider leaving his practice altogether. He said that the bill would force him to accept low compensation for his services.
Currently, he does not accept any insurance plan. Payment is strictly between him and the patient, with no insurance company in the middle. Which permits him to keep his staff down to one employee, and to be able to afford a nice office for his practice in the downtown area. He only charges $50 per adjustment, as opposed to the $90 or so he would have to charge if he was beholden to the insurance red tape.
He worried that many American doctors would take the same route, which would lead to a doctor shortage.
Which would mean the Government looking beyond our borders for healthcare practitioners, many of whom would not be as qualified as american.
Which would lead to a lowering of the quality of care.
His words, not mine.Posted by: carder at November 17, 2009 8:27 PM
What I found super interesting is that my son's allergist, who does take Medicaid, had copies of the pitfalls of HR 3200 in his lobby. Major slam.
This doctor is a Cuban refugee, so I think he would know more than most about what's heading our way.
Health care reform would save tens of thousands or more likely hundreds of thousands of lives, and you "pro-lifers" and "christians" oppose it because it might cost you a few bucks, or give your political enemies a "victory".
Pro-life indeed.Posted by: Bystander at November 17, 2009 9:30 PM
Please some sources that verify the lives saved by health care reform.
Also, how specifically will the money be found to pay for this? What's the bill for it, a trillion?
Keep in mind the debt the stimulus package has already put us in.
You are right. We Christian-pro-lifers tend to be cheap and vindictive. Some people call us right-wing, extremists, and zealots.
It's hard to refute your claims without having the details. Which is it, tens of thousands or hundred of thousands of lives that would be saved with healthcare reform? Saved from what, exactly?Posted by: Janet at November 17, 2009 9:37 PM
I think Bystander is going to be gone for a while. Shall we chat?
How's life? :)
For anyone still unconvinced that Pelosicare is a disaster for everybody, here come the new breast cancer screening guidelines. A "Federal task force" now recommends that women in their 40s do NOT get mammograms and older women only get one every two years. And--yes-- they recommend AGAINST teaching women to do self-exams. Of course this has nothing to do with cutting costs, right?? I think those much ridiculed "death panels" are already knocking at our door... Maybe the idea is to kill as many babies in the womb as possible and to have women die in droves. Less people to put burdens on health care and less money for the government to shell out.
Let's say "NO" to this health care sham. It's a disaster for the unborn and for everyone (except, maybe, illegal aliens...).
Mary and Janet thank you for showing how callous selfish and indifferent to the suffering of others you "pro lifers truly are. Enjoy your chat.
You are welcome to join us now that you're back.
Is it too much to ask you to back up your claims? Calling me selfish and callous doesn't really further a discussion much.
I'm doing just fine thank you. I hope you are as well. My oldest daughter has returned to the fold and is doing very well. Her world is acadamia and research, a confined controlled world she functions very well in. Well, someone has to do this stuff! Her life is very anchored and she has much solitude, and that suits her best as a BPD. The family is very happy and relieved, and also understand her situation. She seems very comfortable in family situations but I would be concerned about large social situations, where I have seen her "melt-down", which she avoids.
Well, we all have our niche, right Janet??
I've appreciated the kindness and concern people, including you Janet, have shown on this blog.Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2009 10:23 PM
Moi??????Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2009 10:24 PM
I'm so happy to hear your oldest daughter is doing well. I hope the holidays are good for you and your family. We're all fine in my neck of the woods. I'm hoping winter just passes us by this year, or if it does come, that we'll have at least enough snow to cover the brown grass! That seems to brighten things up a lot!
I always enjoy your commentary, especially your perspective on history which you know so well. Thank you for your kind words. The feeling is mutual!Posted by: Janet at November 17, 2009 11:01 PM
I hope you are doing well too.
You know what's funny? I too think that a system that severely limits the influence of insurance companies' interference in health care is ideal. It will lower costs by a fair amount, as well as red tape that is prohibiting a lot of people to get good health care at reasonable prices.
The problem is all the money and jobs that are already invested in the insurance business and also being shunted towards all congressman but R and D so that they can preserve them.
The reason I support the public option with an exchange is because I know that insurance companies have such a lethal grip on the health care system that we need an emergency release button.
ALSO, the quote of the day pisses me off. I'm getting sick and tired of people accusing us of being power hungry when they miss the point of our arguments completely. ARG.Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2009 1:28 AM
Mary, I'm so happy to hear about your daughter. Back just in time for the holidays :)Posted by: Fed Up at November 18, 2009 1:40 AM
So glad to hear the news of your daughter! God bless you and yours!
I heard about the new reccommendations for breast cancer early detections on the news yesterday afternoon.
I wasn't sure I was hearing that right. After all the benefits of early detections (HELLO, LIVES SAVED WITH EARLIER AND CHEAPER TREATMENT!) they are reccommending AGAINST early detection of cancer? Early detection is one of the best ways to beat cancer! They can't possibly be serious!
And how does it benefit anyone for a doctor, breast cancer awareness organization, a mother, a friend, SOMEONE to teach other women to do self-exams?? How does that save money or anything else? HOW?? Even if a doctor is doing the teaching it takes, what, a minute to explain? Two minutes at the most?
And telling older women to only get mammograms once every two years... ? Yes, let's give the cancer time to spread, shall we? Let's run the risk (and accept the cost, if we're just looking at money) that something that could be a simple lumpectomy turning into a complete mastectomy... or worse, turning into that plus rounds and rounds of expensive radiation or chemo, with a greater possibility of patient death.
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my brain around these new "reccommendations". Early detection for cancer is ALWAYS best. And young women do develop breast cancer. All women need to be doing self-checks. Good heavens. It's very basic preventative healthcare.
Next they will be telling us not to brush and floss our teeth... it's too expensive, after all. Who cares if it's too late when your teeth have already started to fall out due to gingivitis or rot right out of your head? You can get treatment then...Posted by: army_wife at November 18, 2009 9:16 AM
If you think we have red tape now with the current system, just wait until the government with their colossal red tape gets a hand in this!
I recall Massachusetts having its own version of the public option. Romneycare.
Costs have increased, not gone down.Posted by: carder at November 18, 2009 9:29 AM
And please explain how subsidies to veteranarian students improves human health care.Posted by: carder at November 18, 2009 9:32 AM
If we are abortion "foes", are prochoicers abortion "friends"?Posted by: Phillymiss at November 18, 2009 12:04 PM
"And please explain how subsidies to veteranarian students improves human health care."
Posted by: carder at November 18, 2009 9:32 AM
Back up care during doctor shortages. How different could it be?
* * * * *
"If we are abortion "foes", are prochoicers abortion "friends"?
Posted by: Phillymiss at November 18, 2009 12:04 PM
Sickening, isn't it?
Posted by: Janet
at November 18, 2009 12:39 PM
Your accusations that those who disagree with your preferred healthcare policies do so out of malicious intent are childish and arrogant. It is not as simple as "Obama wants to give everyone free candy but you guys are against it because you have all the candy you want and don't care about anybody else's lack of candy." An overhaul this massive and the establishment of a bureacracy this permanent will have consequences, forseen and unforseenn. There is a serious debate to be had about these potential consequences...how will this impact future economic growth and job creation? How will this impact the quality of medical care? How will this impact an already distorted market?
Oh, and for the record, I don't have health insurance, so in your book that means I'm allowed to have an opinion without being accused of selfishness, right?Posted by: Janette at November 18, 2009 12:43 PM
Indeed, carder @9:29AM. We have examples of failure in Massachussetts, Tennessee, and Hawaii.
Here's a good article on TennCare's shortcomings.
I wouldn't waste my time prolifers trying to respond to BSer's BS. Typical pro-abort BS that "We don't care about women and babies lives after their babies are born". We have done more, volunteered more, gave more, counseled more; along with providing more prenatal care, baby equipment, baby clothes, GED classes, parenting classes, job-training, acceptance and LOVE than any of their Dead Babies R Us crew combined for FREE. They are all about MONEY, LIES AND DEATH. They are set to make billions if healthcare reform passes, that is why BHO and company lied denying abortion was covered and now are pissed that Stupak's amendment passed and abortion got cut from the bill, exposing the truth that they were in the bill all along. Ignore the troll, don't waste your time.Posted by: Prolifer L at November 18, 2009 3:29 PM
Hi Janet, Carla, and FedUp,
Thank you for your kind words and the support and concern you have always shown for my daughter. I can be so thankful her life is anchored and her traits channeled into something positive.
Janet, thank you for the post on my knowledge of history. I must admit, I've lived much of it!!
Hi pip 1:28am
While I strongly support both health insurance and tort reform, I think gov't takeover is overkill.
As I mentioned on another thread I would like to
see people better able to pick and choose from health insurance companies that must compete with each other with prices and services. I understand that in one state, Alabama(?) one company has a monopoly. Cross state competition would prevent this. It would also make companies not in a position to pick and choose which people to take.
Nothing beats free market forces and competition to keep prices down and quality up.
Also tax breaks to purchase insurance or set up medical accounts would be very helpful, but don't hold your breath waiting for tax breaks.
Also tort reform is imperative. Time and again, moronic juries award equally moronic people millions for their own stupidity. I know a man rewarded millions for injuries sustained while jumping off a picnic table onto a child's
water slide while heavily intoxicated. They view this as "sticking" it to the insurance companies, not realizing the companies pass the cost on to them and the rest of us!
"Also tort reform is imperative
Absolutely. It will lower costs significantly!Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2009 4:46 PM
don't hold your breath waiting for tax breaks.
Amen to that, Mary! The senate bill is scored at $849 billion. The purported purpose of this bill, at least in the beginning, was to insure 40 million people. Although it isn't really 40 million, I'll stick with the figure the progressive spinmasters like to use. Math isn't my strong suit, but by my calculations, the bill costs over $20 million per uninsured person.Posted by: Fed Up at November 18, 2009 5:09 PM
Here's an interesting comment from an injury lawyer blog:
Is it the opinion of malpractice attorneys that nothing should be done to change the current system with regards to litigation and reform?
Drug companies-compensation cut. Insurance companies - federal competition. Doctors, P.A.'s, & R.N.'s - cut in compensation.....ambulance chasers-- bigger malpractice pool as system is overwhelmed- YEEHAAA!!!
If we are really going to make the system better sacrifice has to made by everyone-even the lawyers....
....Take your worst client that has ever walked through your door ( a client you know is not a legitimate client) and find out that you are forced by the government to accept their business, spend hours and hours for which they will never pay you. Even better- if the client isn't happy about the advice you give them - they can sue you and sully your reputation.
No one is suggesting that the poor soul that gets the glove left in their chest during surgery does not deserve to be compensated---but our courts and tort lawyers have turned medical malpractice into a lottery.
NO other country that has universal health care has litigation or rewards like we do. Despite out congress being made up of lawyers- I am hopeful that they will find their conscience.
Posted by: Janet
at November 18, 2009 5:14 PM
Also from link above:
Posted June 15, 2009
Obama to AMA: Open to Reform, Not Malpractice Caps
From President Obama speech today:
"Now, I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That’s a real issue. And while I’m not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who’ve been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That’s how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care."
What novel ideas. That'll fix everything.Posted by: Janet at November 18, 2009 5:19 PM