My fourth grade teacher needs to give Bart Stupak a lecture on the difference between the words "can" and "may." While the amendment is written so that a person receiving a subsidy may purchase abortion coverage if they desire it and can afford it, the fact that these women are receiving a subsidy for their health care means they are low income and likely don't have the money to afford the additional coverage and therefore can not purchase a supplemental policy.
Under the plans being debated, will insurance companies pay to remove these senators' heads from their asses?
For the love of...I just don't even. I do not comprehend all this flailing. I would ask Congress to stop letting so many employers wait 90 days before covering new workers, because really, WTF is that? But then the Republicans and half the Dems would probably say that is to "protect" employees from all those rascally people who just want health insurance and would leave once they get new boobs.
But as is, I'd have to think really really carefully before leaving my current job, because frankly, I don't know if I can go 90 days without.
Congressmembers really do have no clue what it is to struggle with healthcare costs. Their official policy might as well be "if a family of 4 making $30k/year can't afford even bread to eat after medical bills, then let them eat cake!"
@sympathyforthebasementcat: There is a time and a place to bash team cake and this is neither. I'm sure Sarah Palin is already preparing her pie recipes for everybody who can't afford health care.
We need to stop ceding the moral high ground to the GOP. These people are throwing monkey wrenches in a package to provide healthcare to poor people in order to cater to big corporate interests and, as a bonus, punish the dirty, dirty sluts in their imaginations who might someday access their legal right to an abortion. We should beat that drum loudly and daily until these corrupt, hypocritical, moralizing, class-baiting, poor hating motherfuckers are driven out of office and back to wherever they came from.
So...optimistically speaking, all the older expensive public option people get to buy Medicare, whereas the less expensive public option people get these exchange thingies with a less expensive risk pool, and therefore maybe cheaper premiums? This doesn't, on its face, sound worse than the shitty senate public option to me, but I guess we have to wait for the CBO. Hell, even the House bill pegged PO reimbursement rates ABOVE medicare rates.
Also, just because somebody making 133% of the poverty line can't get Medicaid doesn't mean they won't get enormous subsidies to buy other stuff.
(By the way, to meet the guidelines for coverage at 133%, a family of four would need to bring home less than $29,327.)
see this is just grotesque. All it does is leave the VAST middle to lower middle class exposed. And the insurance rates keep climbing with no help in sight.
@bluebears: Look on the bright side, soon there will be no middle class, they'll be making so little that they may someday qualify for the idiotic program. Then again, by then the right will have changed the rules in favor of tax cuts for the rich and the left will somehow just let them do that (per usual).
@bluebears: It disincentivizes marriage among the poor, too, since two people making minimum wage would bring in more than that. Not that marriage is the most awesome thing ever, but people shouldn't have to choose between family stability and home stability.
@TheFormerJuneBronson: It doesn't work exactly like that. The Federal Poverty guidelines account for the size of the household. They don't DOUBLE the amount of income you can have and still be under the line (presumably since it's cheaper to live together than separate)...but the actual dollar value of the limit is higher if you have more people in your household.
@johnva: I know that, but you can't deny that a family of four that includes two parents making minimum wage and two kids is going to exceed that limit.
@TheFormerJuneBronson: It's actually pretty close to even with the minimum wage (I think the minimum wage, 40 hours a week, adds up to something like $15,000 per year).
Keep in mind, as I mentioned above, that this is just for Medicaid. If you make too much money for Medicaid, but not much more, then you'll still qualify for a large subsidy for other insurance under the plan. Not necessarily as good as free, but not nothing. And there are other assistance options for people with kids, e.g., SCHIP.
And also, remember that this isn't reducing the income limit for Medicaid...it's just failing to raise it. I agree that it should be raised (actually, the FPL should be raised, instead). But it's really nothing new.
God, I'm going to pull my hair out! Our legislative body can't seem to do anything right. Everything has to be watered down until it barely makes a difference, just so that everyone can have their ego stroked.
@WashingMyHair: It angers me so much. I have so many friends who have no health insurance at all because of pre-existing conditions. It's all such a big racket and no one in governement seems to give a crap.
@EdnasEdibles: They don't care because 1) they're covered and isolated from the problem even after they leave office and 2) they're more worried about filling their war chest and need the corporate lobbyists for that. So they're really voting based on what their corporate contributors want, not the people that elected them.
@EdnasEdibles: I have friends who are lawyers and have only "catastrophic" coverage. It is insane that in a country where we spend tons more on healthcare than any other country on the globe that the access to care is so poor.
Read about this last night on Gawker. I'm mad but unsurprised. I'm just completely, COMPLETELY disgusted. I have nothing else to say. The Democrats are useless, it's time for a third party (or fourth or fifth) because we the people are not being represented.
@bluebears: For reals, I am thisclose to being done with the Dems. I'm a registered Independent, so I'm not in the party anyways, but I usually vote Dem. The way things have been going the last year or so, I don't know who I will vote for next because I don't really care for anyone from any party (except maybe Dennis Kucinich).
"That a solidly anti-choice politician could become a standard- bearer for progressivism, the subject of hagiographic profiles in The Nation and elsewhere, speaks volumes about the low priority of women's rights to the self-described economic left, forever chasing the white male working-class vote. "
@bluebears: At the least, we should be working to break down the barriers to third (and fourth and fifth parties). Get Instant Runoff Voting implemented in more cities, work to have anti-third party rules repealed (in some states, for examples, any party that doesn't get x% of the Presidential vote in the state has to go through the certification process all over again).
@bluetrain84: has he? I mean after all that evidence I'd need to see some hard voting record type proof otherwise I worry he's just paying lip service to it.
@bluebears: Well, he did vote against the child interstate abortion act, the abortion pain bill, and the amendment to prohibit federally funded abortions on the house health care bill as of recent, but I do agree in the past that he was anti-choice. I'm also not saying that he's my favorite politician ever, just somebody who I dislike less than the rest.
@bluebears: Yes, he has changed his views. If you google it you will see that he has indeed compiled a pro-choice voting record since the time this article was written (100% ratings from NARAL). There are plenty of things you can legitimately criticize Kucinich over (such as the fact that he seems to be fonder of grandstanding than actually getting anything done), but his voting record on abortion rights in the recent past isn't one of them.
Gah, I am so angry that they made abortion an issue here and bogged down the bill. We need these reforms and this coverage ASAP. It's just ridiculous. Making women choose between coverage and reproductive rights is sick, and I'm glad they're not taking it lying down... but on the other hand I really want these reforms to pass so I can finally afford health care. #roevsworld
Hey dudes, remember ellaesther? She blogs (it's good! read it!) and had some good ideas about things we can do about abortion activism and awareness, so if you're interested, check it out: [emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com]#roevsworld
I saw the candidates for Maine Governor speak and answer questions this weekend. It was so refreshing. On a question on sex-ed and abortion, even the Republicans wouldn't come out and say either was wrong, and a couple of the female Democratic candidates made some pretty impassioned statements about how they have been fighting for abortion rights all their lives. And this in rural Maine, although in a liberal university town. After hearing all the pandering on the national stage, it amazed me that some politicians are actually comfortable to support abortion 100%. And that is depressing. #roevsworld
I really appreciate the Guttamacher institute clarifying that 13% statistic. A conservative colleague drew my boyfriend's attention to that WSJ article, and ever since then he's been all, "Well women are paying out of pocket for their abortions anyway..." As if that would make the amendment okay, and as if those 13% of women don't matter. Also, this point strikes me as the key to why I'm angry:
That antiabortion activists who have worked for decades to perpetuate that stigma are now turning around and using it to argue why women should not be able to purchase insurance coverage for abortion is deeply cynical.#roevsworld
Ever since Murdoch took over the WSJ, it's been chalk full of bias and bad-editing.
On another note: about four months ago, there was a story published twice (verbatim) under two different headlines on the second page. The second page! How does something like that go unnoticed? #roevsworld
@pantsless economist...access RESTORED: All of them read as, "If ObamaCare is implemented, the world's doctors will disappear just like those stupid hippie-tree-huggers said that bumblebees are disappearing... except we're right about this and they're wrong. Always. Fucking hippies suck! But I'm not saying stupid hippies are stupid. I'm just saying they're hippies. And hippies are important. Well, important to no one. HA!" And then the readers are left to ask "When did the Journal hire Glen Beck for editorials?" #roevsworld
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
For the love of...I just don't even. I do not comprehend all this flailing. I would ask Congress to stop letting so many employers wait 90 days before covering new workers, because really, WTF is that? But then the Republicans and half the Dems would probably say that is to "protect" employees from all those rascally people who just want health insurance and would leave once they get new boobs.
But as is, I'd have to think really really carefully before leaving my current job, because frankly, I don't know if I can go 90 days without.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
What would Jesus do? Not this.
12/09/09
12/09/09
"It's a huge burden on the states," Snowe said. "It is without question and without a doubt a very expensive proposition."
Agree completely. It's hilarious to see Congress kicking this duty to states that are barely keeping themselves afloat. What a stupid idea.
12/09/09
Also, just because somebody making 133% of the poverty line can't get Medicaid doesn't mean they won't get enormous subsidies to buy other stuff.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
see this is just grotesque. All it does is leave the VAST middle to lower middle class exposed. And the insurance rates keep climbing with no help in sight.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
Keep in mind, as I mentioned above, that this is just for Medicaid. If you make too much money for Medicaid, but not much more, then you'll still qualify for a large subsidy for other insurance under the plan. Not necessarily as good as free, but not nothing. And there are other assistance options for people with kids, e.g., SCHIP.
And also, remember that this isn't reducing the income limit for Medicaid...it's just failing to raise it. I agree that it should be raised (actually, the FPL should be raised, instead). But it's really nothing new.
12/09/09
Assholes, everyone of them!
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
[www.thenation.com]
from the article:
"That a solidly anti-choice politician could become a standard- bearer for progressivism, the subject of hagiographic profiles in The Nation and elsewhere, speaks volumes about the low priority of women's rights to the self-described economic left, forever chasing the white male working-class vote. "
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
[emilylhauserinmyhead.wordpress.com] #roevsworld
11/17/09
11/17/09
That antiabortion activists who have worked for decades to perpetuate that stigma are now turning around and using it to argue why women should not be able to purchase insurance coverage for abortion is deeply cynical. #roevsworld
11/17/09
On another note: about four months ago, there was a story published twice (verbatim) under two different headlines on the second page. The second page! How does something like that go unnoticed? #roevsworld
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09