• Jezebel
  • celebrity
  • sex
  • fashion
  • Profile logout login

#healthcarereform#msg1560

Jezebel

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #snapjudgment,
  • #groupthink,
  • etc.

New York, 3:40 PM
Sun Dec 6
22 posts in the last 24 hours

Tip your editors:

Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter

Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter

Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
| Twitter

Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter

Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter

Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter

Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers

Lizzie Skurnick

Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter


Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
1770 Subscribers
Jezebel
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of AndPreciousLittleofThat AndPreciousLittleofThat
    12/03/09

    In reply to Senators Protect Mammograms, Screening Tests for Women
    Great news! But how about we stick it to them where it really hurts?

    We need to tack on a rider defunding hair plugs and Viagra, which (as my wife points out with righteous fury) are currently both covered by most major insurers and can be paid for using flexible spending money.

    Not currently covered by flexible spending: tampons.
     Reply
    AndPreciousLittleofThat was starred AndPreciousLittleofThat was unstarred
    Image of lermanzo lermanzo
    12/03/09

    @AndPreciousLittleofThat: and this, kids, is what is wrong with the american health care system. optional things to boost men's egos are more likely to be funded than things that are necessary for women.

    actually. maybe we should look into having a bleed-in.
     Reply
    lermanzo was starred lermanzo was unstarred
    Image of deeemer deeemer
    12/03/09

    @AndPreciousLittleofThat: Or IUDs. Or lo-dose birth control pills.
     Reply
    deeemer was starred deeemer was unstarred
    Image of morninggloria morninggloria
    12/03/09

    In reply to Senators Protect Mammograms, Screening Tests for Women
    I'm going to get so many fucking bone density screenings that it's going to bankrupt the entire system!
     Reply
    morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred
    Image of CurtCole CurtCole
    12/03/09

    @morninggloria: I'm sorry, would you mind calcifying that statement?
     Reply
    Edited by CurtCole at 12/03/09 1:59 PM CurtCole was starred CurtCole was unstarred
    Image of PilgrimSoul PilgrimSoul
    12/03/09

    In reply to Senators Protect Mammograms, Screening Tests for Women
    A bunch of old dudes were persuaded to support the continued maintenance of tits while still threatening to filibuster if the bill doesn't ACTUALLY limit women's personal sovereignty? Colour me shocked.

    This goes exactly to Ehrenreich's issue yesterday. Now that the dudes have made their gesture to women via the pink ribbon brigade, they can justify their misogyny to themselves. Awful.
     Reply
    PilgrimSoul was starred PilgrimSoul was unstarred
    Image of SarahMC SarahMC
    12/03/09

    @PilgrimSoul: Brillz.
     Reply
    SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred
    Image of Hooplehead Hooplehead
    12/03/09

    @PilgrimSoul: Well you know, boobs come in handy for breast-feeding, I hear. And sexytimes. But we don't want the wimmenz to get carried away and think they can actually conduct their own lives as they see fit or have control over their own health. That would be going overboard.
     Reply
    Hooplehead was starred Hooplehead was unstarred
    Image of pantsless economist...access RESTORED pantsless economist...access RESTORED
    12/03/09

    In reply to Senators Protect Mammograms, Screening Tests for Women
    Let's just hope insurance companies aren't allowed to capriciously and arbitrarily define "preventative."
     Reply
    pantsless economist...access RESTORED was starred pantsless economist...access RESTORED was unstarred
    Image of CurtCole CurtCole
    12/03/09

    @pantsless economist...access RESTORED: I wouldn't be surprised if the insurance companies turned this into a topicality debate, debating the amendment word by word.
     Reply
    Edited by CurtCole at 12/03/09 1:41 PM CurtCole was starred CurtCole was unstarred
    Image of Penny Penny
    12/03/09

    In reply to Senators Protect Mammograms, Screening Tests for Women
    My boobs thank you.

    But my uterus is still being held hostage, so it's a little pissy.
     Reply
    Edited by Penny at 12/03/09 1:37 PM Penny was starred Penny was unstarred
    Image of lalaland13 lalaland13
    12/03/09

    @Penny: Yeah, I read a column in Newsweek about how pro-choicers shouldn't kill health care if Stupak stays in, and I wanted to throw something. I am tired of being a good little girl and compromising.
     Reply
    lalaland13 was starred lalaland13 was unstarred
    Image of Hooplehead Hooplehead
    12/03/09

    @lalaland13: This. Compromise is why we're losing. You don't see the GOP giving any ground, and we should stop ceding ours and fight them for it. I want O and Rahm out there twisting arms and shanking the opposition until they have the votes they need. I elected a Chicago politician, dammit, now I expect to reap the benefits.
     Reply
    Hooplehead was starred Hooplehead was unstarred
    Image of Ratinski Ratinski
    12/03/09

    @lalaland13: Because we aren't actually compromising. Compromise involves give and take on both sides; we give all the fucking time, and it's never time for us to take.
     Reply
    Ratinski was starred Ratinski was unstarred
    Image of lermanzo lermanzo
    12/03/09

    In reply to Senators Protect Mammograms, Screening Tests for Women
    now if only someone will propose an amendment to protect my IVIG that i need to live... i would be very happy.
     Reply
    lermanzo was starred lermanzo was unstarred
    Image of girlscoutcookie is back from hiatus girlscoutcookie is back from hiatus
    12/03/09

    In reply to Senators Protect Mammograms, Screening Tests for Women
    It has seemed lately that because of how little I understand about the health care debate, every time I see a headline that seems like a good thing it turns out to be a bad thing in disguise...

    ...but I can give this an unqualified YAY!, right?
     Reply
    girlscoutcookie is back from hiatus was starred girlscoutcookie is back from hiatus was unstarred
    Image of LucilleMcGillicuddy LucilleMcGillicuddy
    12/03/09

    @girlscoutcookie is back from hiatus: god, I hope so. I could use a yay.
     Reply
    LucilleMcGillicuddy was starred LucilleMcGillicuddy was unstarred
    Image of tiredfairy tiredfairy
    11/30/09

    In reply to Why Are Pro-Choicers Spending So Much Time Fighting Stupak-Pitts?
    You know what? I don't care who does and doesn't want their tax dollars going to abortion. There are about a thousand things our taxes go to that you could morally object to. But. We. Don't. Get. To. Line. Item. Our. Taxes.

    For good reasons. If we let people decide what taxes they felt like paying we'd probably have no public schools or transportation, roads that worked, or a postal system. And I shudder to think what would happen to the arts. But we might all have roof mounted oozies, a wall up between Mexico, and some kind of required bible teaching.

    Sorry, I am just really not feeling charitable about this today.

    We get it. Some people think abortion is murder. We also don't care. Because they have every right to think that and then NOT HAVE AN ABORTION.

    But trying to make sure no other woman can make that decision for herself is just wrong. And you can't hide that with "I don't want my taxes going to anything I don't like." Sometimes things you don't like are necessary. I don't like war, but having no military is just plain stupid.

    I just do not get how we got to a place where this seems reasonable to anyone. By that logic, I should be able to inflict my moral beliefs on other people so long as I can cobble together some kind of majority. So if we get to a point where we decide people shouldn't have more than one kid by law (like in China) then we can force them to abort or give them up for adoption. Because that sounds totally reasonable and awesome. Right? Right?

    This just ends up nowhere good. If you want the reproductive freedom to have kids, you need to support the reproductive freedom not to. They. Are. Not. Separate.
     Reply
    tiredfairy was starred tiredfairy was unstarred
    Image of smama smama
    11/30/09

    @tiredfairy: Very well said.
     Reply
    smama was starred smama was unstarred
    Image of Deneuverly Deneuverly
    11/30/09

    @tiredfairy: You said it, it was a good thing, too, because I am too depressed/angry about it all to make any sense.
     Reply
    tiredfairy promoted this comment Deneuverly was starred Deneuverly was unstarred
    Image of whynotshesaid whynotshesaid
    11/30/09

    In reply to Why Are Pro-Choicers Spending So Much Time Fighting Stupak-Pitts?
    Why is Megan McArdle employed as a columnist? She is a terrible writer who couldn't write a clear sentence if an editor pointed a gun at her head, and she brings nothing to political discourse that couldn't be found with a quick canvass of the local college libertarians.
     Reply
    whynotshesaid was starred whynotshesaid was unstarred
    Image of queenieinmanhattan queenieinmanhattan
    11/30/09

    In reply to Why Are Pro-Choicers Spending So Much Time Fighting Stupak-Pitts?
    "And once again, the majority of the country doesn't want a lot of shit. People didn't want to desegregate, or have their tax dollars fund schools and public services in minority areas. I don't want to pay for wars with my tax dollars. But the government doesn't work that way - did I miss the line-item veto form on my taxes?"

    EXACTLY.

    When did people forget that one of the things the government is supposed to do is protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority? False populism, FTW?
     Reply
    queenieinmanhattan was starred queenieinmanhattan was unstarred
    Image of lostinalunchbox lostinalunchbox
    11/30/09

    In reply to Why Are Pro-Choicers Spending So Much Time Fighting Stupak-Pitts?
    I practice ob-gyn in new york, and estimate that about 80% of the abortions we do at my hospital are covered by Medicaid - probably similiar stats in the other 16 states where medicaid will cover it. With stupak, that coverage might disappear, if medicaid gets pulled into the "exchange". Most of my patients will not have the money for an abortion. They will go to the pharmacy and buy medication to induce an abortion under the counter (widely available in our latino neighborhood). They will come to the hospital with bleeding, probably denying that they took anything, but stuck somewhere in the process of the abortion, what we call "incomplete". Most will be perfectly stable. But even those who are fine will require follow up ultrasounds, clinic visits and possibly a d&c to complete the process, as well as many expensive lab draws if the fetus is passed by the time they come to the hospital, because then we have to make sure it isn't an ectopic pregnancy which requires weeks of follow up.

    So, your not wanting to have your dollars go to pay for a $500 abortion has now turned into you paying $1500-$2000 in medicaid hospital bills for management of an 'incomplete miscarriage' or 'rule out ectopic'. You have saved yourself exactly NO tax dollars. Congratulations.

    How do I know this exact sequence? Because we already do this exact thing between 3-5 times a week for women who already do this, because they don't know abortion is legal, they don't know medicaid will pay here, they have a friend who did it that way. If they take away the medicaid option, I'll just be running my ass down to the ER to see these ladies about 200 times more often, and all you abortion-hating taxpayers will still be footing the bill.
     Reply
    PilgrimSoul promoted this comment lostinalunchbox was starred lostinalunchbox was unstarred
    Image of boobookitteh boobookitteh
    11/30/09

    @lostinalunchbox: THIS.
     Reply
    boobookitteh was starred boobookitteh was unstarred
    Image of wynniepiglet wynniepiglet
    11/30/09

    @lostinalunchbox: Well expressed. It is nice to hear a medical professional's opinion/observations on the matter. THIS is the type of information that might be useful for the public to know about the realities of policies that, in effect, restrict abortion. Hyde sucks, Stupak-Pitts is even worse. Really, this whole thing just illustrates how the most vulnerable will have their terrible circumstances exacerbated by this ass backwards legislation... oh yeah, not to mention the obvious kick in the teeth to women's rights and equality.
     Reply
    la.donna.pietra promoted this comment wynniepiglet was starred wynniepiglet was unstarred
    Image of la.donna.pietra la.donna.pietra
    11/30/09

    @lostinalunchbox: Hearted. I wish I could print this up on billboards and blanket the country with it.
     Reply
    la.donna.pietra was starred la.donna.pietra was unstarred
    Image of whynotshesaid whynotshesaid
    11/30/09

    @lostinalunchbox: The Atlantic should have taken the money they paid McArdle for her keyboard dribble and given it to you instead.
     Reply
    whynotshesaid was starred whynotshesaid was unstarred
    Image of Pizza!Pizza!Pizza! Pizza!Pizza!Pizza!
    11/30/09

    @wynniepiglet: And when all else fails, if these idjuts really want to pretend it's about the Benjamins, appeal to their greed. They will end up paying more for their 'moral' stance, if not through medicaid hospital bills, then quite possibly through taxes going to welfare, food stamps, foster care and the criminal justice system.
     Reply
    Pizza!Pizza!Pizza! was starred Pizza!Pizza!Pizza! was unstarred
    Image of CParis CParis
    11/30/09

    @Pizza!Pizza!Pizza!: That doesn't work either.
    They don't use logic - it's about religion and ultimately about keeping (other) women in "their place."
     Reply
    CParis was starred CParis was unstarred
    Image of Valkyrie607 Valkyrie607
    11/30/09

    In reply to Why Are Pro-Choicers Spending So Much Time Fighting Stupak-Pitts?
    There is a National Day of Action (that's this Wednesday, November 2) where coalitions from different Reproductive Rights Organizations will lobby their congresspeople as well as rally.

    Erm, should that read Wednesday, DECEMBER 2?
     Reply
    cate3710 promoted this comment Valkyrie607 was starred Valkyrie607 was unstarred
    Image of cate3710 cate3710
    11/30/09

    @Valkyrie607: Yes, it should.
     Reply
    cate3710 was starred cate3710 was unstarred
    Image of Valkyrie607 Valkyrie607
    11/30/09

    @cate3710: Hey, Jezebel! Am available for copy-editing, will work for peanuts, or at least a star.
     Reply
    Valkyrie607 was starred Valkyrie607 was unstarred
    Image of cate3710 cate3710
    11/30/09

    In reply to Why Are Pro-Choicers Spending So Much Time Fighting Stupak-Pitts?
    Gah. Stupak would also prevent abortions unless the life of the mother is threatened, so incidents where the fetus is non-viable aren't covered, nor are cases where selective abortion are called for, such as this: [www.rhrealitycheck.org]

    Not all abortions are because women are stupid sluts who forgot to use their birth control, anti-choicers. Learn to see the grey areas and acknowledge the unintended consequences that this sort of ban would have.
     Reply
    cate3710 was starred cate3710 was unstarred
    Image of boobookitteh boobookitteh
    11/30/09

    In reply to Why Are Pro-Choicers Spending So Much Time Fighting Stupak-Pitts?
    "...a completely irrelevant discussion of the disparate effects of the Stupak amendment on poor women, arguing that women's reproductive health care is too real health care, and similarly unrelated side points."

    Am I missing something? That right there is the entire crux of the debate. Hardly irrelevant or unrelated.

    I hate that we may sully our historic health care reform with exceptions that disproportionately affect one portion of the population - poor women. And to do so with a provision that helps to perpetuate the cycle of poverty is counterproductive, at best.

    This just makes me so ragey.
     Reply
    boobookitteh was starred boobookitteh was unstarred
    Image of SarahMC SarahMC
    11/30/09

    In reply to Why Are Pro-Choicers Spending So Much Time Fighting Stupak-Pitts?
    How the hell did Megan McArdle get a platform like this to broadcast her ignorance? They have her on NPR all the time, as well. I hate her.
     Reply
    SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred
    Image of whynotshesaid whynotshesaid
    11/30/09

    @SarahMC: THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW. She sucks so much. Why does anyone pay for her opinions?
     Reply
    whynotshesaid was starred whynotshesaid was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Jezebel account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.