21 Mar 10
1 edit
I have to give credit to the Obama administration for turning the Scott Brown lemon (for the Dems) into lemonade. Without Brown's election, there's probably no impetus for the passage of the Senate bill as it is in the House.
The bill will probably get no GOP votes. That's no GOP votes in either House! What amazing party discipline!
Well, the die will be cast. If the healthcare bill is popular in a few months or years, this will be Obama's greatest coup.
If the bill turns out to be a disaster, God help the Democratic Party for a decade.
Should be interesting to watch how it all plays out.
Edit: I'll bet Nebraska is celebrating. This is basically the only scenario by which Nebraska could have kept that nauseating glob of pork the Dems gave to Nelson to get the 60th vote. If they'd use reconciliation or nuke the filibuster or whatever, they'd no longer need Nelson.
21 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76The Nebraska provision will be voted out by the House in the bill making changes to the Senate bill before the vote passing the Senate bill. Then the Senate will have to pass the changes bill under reconciliation as more than 50 Senate Democrats have already agreed to do.
I have to give credit to the Obama administration for turning the Scott Brown lemon (for the Dems) into lemonade. Without Brown's election, there's probably no impetus for the passage of the Senate bill as it is in the House.
The bill will probably get no GOP votes. That's no GOP votes in either House! What amazing party discipline!
Well, the die will be ey'd use reconciliation or nuke the filibuster or whatever, they'd no longer need Nelson.
It'll be interesting to watch Senate Republicans bitterly fighting the changes bill and thus trying to retain the Nebraska "glob of pork".
21 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderOh okay. I thought they'd avoid reconciliation by passing the Senate version.
The Nebraska provision will be voted out by the House in the bill making changes to the Senate bill before the vote passing the Senate bill. Then the Senate will have to pass the changes bill under reconciliation as more than 50 Senate Democrats have already agreed to do.
It'll be interesting to watch Senate Republicans bitterly fighting the changes bill and thus trying to retain the Nebraska "glob of pork".
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76You were right. If the House passes the Senate bill it must be as is, including the Nelson and Landru pork.
Oh okay. I thought they'd avoid reconciliation by passing the Senate version.
As I type I watched Bart Stupak fold to a promise of an executive order to protect against federal funds for abortion. This will never happen, and will be unenforceable, if Obama actually makes it.
The abortion funding remains in the bill, and Obama will sign it, and it isn't coming out.
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by normbenignhttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21/stupak-says-health-care-deal-looming-abortion-funding/
You were right. If the House passes the Senate bill it must be as is, including the Nelson and Landru pork.
As I type I watched Bart Stupak fold to a promise of an executive order to protect against federal funds for abortion. This will never happen, and will be unenforceable, if Obama actually makes it.
The abortion funding remains in the bill, and Obama will sign it, and it isn't coming out.
"The White House issued its own statement about the executive order.
The president "will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion,"
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by normbenignFalse on both counts.
You were right. If the House passes the Senate bill it must be as is, including the Nelson and Landru pork.
As I type I watched Bart Stupak fold to a promise of an executive order to protect against federal funds for abortion. This will never happen, and will be unenforceable, if Obama actually makes it.
The abortion funding remains in the bill, and Obama will sign it, and it isn't coming out.
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by normbenignThe abortion funding will be removed, although for my two cents they can leave it in and embellish it. The house also passed the recon bill which includes amendmants to the senate bill. The changes make it more friendly in that the special kickbacks are removed and added rebates and such are included.
You were right. If the House passes the Senate bill it must be as is, including the Nelson and Landru pork.
As I type I watched Bart Stupak fold to a promise of an executive order to protect against federal funds for abortion. This will never happen, and will be unenforceable, if Obama actually makes it.
The abortion funding remains in the bill, and Obama will sign it, and it isn't coming out.
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by normbenignThere is not and never was abortion funding in the bill, Period. Every independent fact checker around confirms this.
You were right. If the House passes the Senate bill it must be as is, including the Nelson and Landru pork.
As I type I watched Bart Stupak fold to a promise of an executive order to protect against federal funds for abortion. This will never happen, and will be unenforceable, if Obama actually makes it.
The abortion funding remains in the bill, and Obama will sign it, and it isn't coming out.
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by badmoonThere is nothing to remove. It's not there.
The abortion funding will be removed, although for my two cents they can leave it in and embellish it. The house also passed the recon bill which includes amendmants to the senate bill. The changes make it more friendly in that the special kickbacks are removed and added rebates and such are included.
22 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI think the main argument is that the government is giving subsidies to help people buy coverage in the open market - and some of those plans on the open market are likely to include abortion as part of the coverage. So tax dollars would very indirectly be used to fund abortions.
There is not and never was abortion funding in the bill, Period. Every independent fact checker around confirms this.
But the only way to fix this would be to specfically BAN all insurance companies from including abortion as part of their coverage - something that would be politically impossible to do.
If I was Obama, I would put Bart Stupak in charge of a commission to come up with forward-thinking ideas for convincing more people with unwanted to pregnancies to choose to give birth - or even better, to prevent these people from getting an unwanted pregnancy to begin with. Maybe in a few years time, abortion doctors will be going out of business simply due to a lack of people choosing abortion.
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThat is a GREAT idea. So great it is already done. The bill specifically prohibits insurance providers from covering elective abortions if the policy is subsidized. In order for abortions to be covered the insured must make seperate payments into an "abortion fund", which is highly unlikely for anyone to do.
I think the main argument is that the government is giving subsidies to help people buy coverage in the open market - and some of those plans on the open market are likely to include abortion as part of the coverage. So tax dollars would very indirectly be used to fund abortions.
But the only way to fix this would be to specfically BAN all insurance co ...[text shortened]... abortion doctors will be going out of business simply due to a lack of people choosing abortion.
Under either case, NO federal funds go toward abortions. That is a fact.
22 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperif someone wants to have abortion as part of their coverage, why wouldn't they make this "abortion fund" payment and get their coverage?
That is a GREAT idea. So great it is already done. The bill specifically prohibits insurance providers from covering elective abortions if the policy is subsidized. In order for abortions to be covered the insured must make seperate payments into an "abortion fund", which is highly unlikely for anyone to do.
Under either case, NO federal funds go toward abortions. That is a fact.
People choosing to go this route would then be using federal subsidies in a very indirect way to help pay for abortion coverage.
But you could make the same argument about ANY government payments. If someone who works for the government uses money from their salary to pay for an abortion, you could argue that federal funds are being used to pay for abortions. So I agree that at a certain point, the GOP's argument becomes rather silly.