HR 3962 Passes
Oh boy -
220-215 with a single Republican voting in favor.
The devil is in the details - so now we can pick apart the bill and decide if it goes far enough. Let’s hope so because as it gets merged with the bill in Senate it certainly won’t get any stronger.
What was important to me? A strong robust public option on Day 1. I don’t think it is there.
In other news - the useless Stupak amendment which imposes unnecessary restrictions on women’s reproductive rights was also passed with 64 Democrats voting yes.
Next stop the Senate
Related posts:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
Massa voted against.
So the bill barely passed - Kucinich also voted against. So did Scott Murphy NY20.
In the end the question is does the bill go far enough and how does or will it sync up with the bill in the Senate. The resulting Bill will not get stronger it will only get weaker as items are tossed overboard to bring on certain votes.
The Massa vote was not a surprise nor should it be considered one. He has made his position known over and over again and he has stayed with his position. He probably would have voted positive if the Public option was tied to Medicare rates (I don’t think they are) or the Public option was stronger.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
Massa voted against. I tried posting this but it didn’t take - I think.
As you know - my view is something’s better than nothing. Coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, can’t knock folks off who are sick. It’s a step in the right direction. And mejor que nada.
Ah, the something is better than nothing debate. Well, like I said - the final bill the President signs will be weaker than the bill just passed. Why? Because additional compromise will be needed when it merges with the Senate.
So imagine starting the debate - with a stronger bill. I’m disappointed that the Progressive Block folded. Seems like if blocs act as blocs they ultimately get what they want. Works for the Blue Dogs and Republicans why not the Progressives?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have started with a strong position. That’s negotiating 101. But here’s where we are.
And yes - I do believe better health care for some is an improvement over no better health care for all.
I may have even said that something is better than nothing, but this Stupak amendment puts a whole different spin on it. You can click on to OpenLeft and find the list of Dems who voted in favor of the amendment. ONE WOMAN only, in a long list of dicks.
We’re going backwards, my friends.
I’m with Eric Massa on this one.
The stupak amendment does not put any restrictions on women’s government created right, it just says the rest of us don’t have to pay for her play.
So, WRONG, Mike WNT. I am so sick of this even being debated by those who have external plumbing. This is a woman’s issue. NO WOMB, NO OPINION!!!
Period.
It ceases to be just a woman’s issue when others are forced to subsidize the cost for abortions. People who are morally, ethically, religiously and/or scientifically opposed to abortions should not be compelled to pay for them. External plumbing has nothing to with it. Many persons of the internal plumbing persuasion feel the same way.
So let them have their say, while you remain silent. Removing funding for abortion is condemning women to seek them elsewhere. This results in death and disfigurement. I’m sure that that’s the price you pay, though, for being a loose woman. Apparently you are too young to remember the wire hanger scenario.
I’m not.
Scientifically???
About 2% of abortions are necessary for life threatening or crime related reasons. That makes the rest of the abortions elective as a result of one’s own actions.
Again, do you have a vagina? Are you ever going to become pregnant and abort it? Stay out of this. I do my best to stay out, but I still listen to both sides of the issue.
Jean-Luc, when my money is being used to subsidize someone else’s elective surgery, it becomes my issue.
I would be paying for your elective surgery as well.
Not true, other elective surgeries require either cash or a separate insurance rider.
I’m pretty sure mole removal is covered. How come you’re not up in arms about that? How about paying for other people’s Viagra (in addition to your own)? You’re such a hypocrite! It’s all judgment. You have no idea what these women have been through, you’ve never walked a mile in their moccasins. Like I said, death is the price you pay for sleeping around, if you’re a woman. Never mind that it’s your sexually abusive father who fathered the child, or your sexually abusive husband, for that matter. Or the boyfriend who refused to wear a condom, or the co-worker who was drunk at the Christmas Party, or for that matter, birth control used and didn’t work(been there, done that) and a young married couple who was just starting out and couldn’t afford kids, because then they’d have to stay on social services and wouldn’t be able to pull themselves “up by their boot straps”. You have no idea of that of which you speak.
Oh, and it’s not a surgery, it’s a procedure. A surgery would require an incision.
Thoughts by someone way smarter than me…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/8/802016/-HCR-Passes:-Kucinich-Can-Bite-Me
I can’t believe how angry some people are here. I have a friend in Germany and she agrees that universal health care is long overdue in this country. However, someone else I knew told her to shut up when she was explaining how National Socialism actually worked (killing everyone who was not in the party or “pure” German). People can be “nationalist” WITHOUT socialism (nationalism is just a very extreme version of patriotism).
There are times when you stand on principle and there are times when you hold your nose and do what needs to be done. In my mind, holding one’s nose was required here.
You’ve exposed the major flaw in liberalism/progressivism, it is ok to ignore one’s principles for something you want.