60 On Health Insurance Reform!!

Thanks, Burt (0.00 / 0)

Let's see what we have here.....

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 10:13:39 AM CST

And all it took was for the men of the Senate (0.00 / 0)

to let states outlaw insurance plans that cover abortion.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 10:14:10 AM CST

Let's See, Elwood (0.00 / 0)

How different from the extant Hyde amendment it is.

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 10:35:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the Hyde amendment (4.00 / 1)

ensured that federal funds could NOT be used to fund abortion.

This redundancy is just another way of throwing women under the bus - something Democrats will very clearly do, just as easily as Republicans.

Now the message will be about how it's important to do this  for "the greater good."

No one will ever ask MEN to sacrifice for the greater good. You all will still get penis pumps, implants, and pills covered by YOUR insurance.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 11:40:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Here's the Abortion Aspect (0.00 / 0)

New York Times:

Some health plans receiving federal subsidies could offer coverage for abortion, but they could not use federal money to pay for the procedure. They would have to use money taken from premiums paid by subscribers and would have to keep it separate from federal money.

Interesting. Not great, for sure, but...

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 10:48:19 AM CST

It's not ideal, but it sounds like the status quo. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 11:09:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Now This (0.00 / 0)

From The Hill:
A number of Republican senators attacked an agreement reached between Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Senate Democratic leaders Saturday, saying it would lead to the eventual reversal of more than 30 years of federal law banning abortion funding.

Encouraging!

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 14:05:01 PM CST

A lot to mull over (4.00 / 1)

This I can live with (from Talking Points Memo):

If you're buying insurance with help from the government, and the policy you want to buy covers abortions, you have to write two checks (or authorize two credit card transactions, etc.) for your plan. If the plan costs $1000 a month, and the insurer plans to sequester $50 to put into a pool that covers abortions, you have to make one payment of $950 and a separate payment of $50.

This I don't like at all:

On abortion, the measure would let a state disallow coverage in new insurance exchanges by passing a law to that effect.

Under the Hyde amendment, federal funds can't be used to pay for terminations at all, so I grudgingly guess this bill peels aways at Hyde by a micronanofration of a tiny percentage by not allowing the federal fund piece to stop a woman from buying a policy that covers terminations.  But I want to learn more about it before I say thumbs up or down on the whole bill. Hopefully the members of the House of Representatives won't start taking positions until they also have a chance to digest the bill and hear from constituents.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 15:21:10 PM CST

A very big concern (4.00 / 1)

On abortion, the measure would let a state disallow coverage in new insurance exchanges by passing a law to that effect.

This would disproporationately affect the southern and Great Plains regions -- states that already have an extremely small numbers of reproductive health facilities, and those that exist are under extreme strain from boycotts and grandstanding right-wing politicians.

I need to learn more, too.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:16:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It seems to say that (0.00 / 0)

the new model is everyone buys health insurance by going through an exchange - I assume businesses use the exchange to select their group policies? - and a state can prohibit the exchange from including policies that include abortion coverage. Regardless of whether the insured is subsidized. That appears to be more restrictive than Hyde. But the terms are not clear.

(It also seems odd that the Senate has decided that what our health care system really needs is an additional layer of bureaucracy, in the form of these exchanges.)

---

by: elwood @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 16:17:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's one small step for man... (4.00 / 4)

One giant "take a flying leap" for womankind.

---

by: Tim C. @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 11:14:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

MA Health Connector (0.00 / 0)

https://www.mahealthconnector....

I buy our health insurance direct from Fallon Community Health. If you want to see the exchange that helped me find the insurance that now covers our family, follow the link above.

Don't worry, you won't end up with a new policy by accident.

www.KusterforCongress.com  

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 19:32:35 PM CST

Very good discussion from Dr. Dean on MTP this morning. (4.00 / 3)

Walks back the 'vote it down' meme a tad, saying lets see what the House can do to make it better, but expressing cogently the very real problems with the bill, starting with the decision to essentially commit to a private insurance model. Like several on BH, he thinks it unlikely that we will be able to reverse this and forsees a 30 war nickel and diming effort on the part of the insurance industry.

Axelrod presents the case for the real benefits in the bill.

Link not yet available.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sun Dec 20, 2009 at 09:01:05 AM CST

Sen.Shaheen was in the chair! n/t (4.00 / 1)

"Poetry is not an expression of the party line. It's that time of night, lying in bed, thinking what you really think, making the private world public, that's what the poet does." Allen Ginsberg

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 07:01:02 AM CST