This bill is far from perfect – voting for a bill that included the Stupak amendment was something that was not easy for many members of the Democratic caucus to stomach. But Ted Kennedy realized what it really meant to compromise. Passing this bill was necessary so that real progress could finally be made towards passing a bill for universal health care before the end of the year. Ted Kennedy knew that No Child Left Behind was not perfect, but he knew that something had to be done with regards to education reform and so he worked with others to craft the best bill possible under the circumstances. Michael Capuano realizes that we cannot let the opportunity to pass meaningful reform pass us by – that this could be our only moment to accomplish what so many other sessions of Congress have only dreamed of – and was willing to bite the bullet if it meant that the process would be moved along and that many millions of uninsured people would be covered soon.
Hindu Democrats encourages you to vote on December 8 for someone who has always been a staunch supporter of Ted Kennedy’s dream for universal health care – Congressman Michael Capuano.
Please donate to Hindu Democrats today so that we can continue to support great candidates like Mike.
especially if the Stupak amendment is rubbed out in the Senate or in conference, I’m not sure it’s the case that if Martha were faced with the choice she’d be so dogmatic unless her vote led to fixing the bill.
As far as I can tell, for women at least, this health care bill is NOT reform and NO improvement…between not covering gynecological exams fully, not improving coverage as to pregnancy or delivery OR Choice, why would anyone vote for it…ANY at all bill is not better than a true reform package.
<
p>Passing what is in actuality mandatory catastrophic coverage where people cannot afford to treat conditions that require regular care such as we have passed in Massachusetts may be the “appearance of health insurance” without the reality.
<
p>Kind of like the alleged Potemkin villages created to give a false impression of peace and prosperity during the reign of Empress Catherine in Old Russia.
<
p>I know all too many self employed people who have these Massachusetts mandatory policies with $3000 deductibles and high co-pays because they are required to do so who do not treat chronic conditions or other “minor” matters because the co-pays and deductibles are so very high. Great progress. Unless one has MassHealth or a “real” policy, maybe the Massachusetts healthcare expansion is a sham and an illusion, like those Potemkin Villages.
<
p>If not is the time for health care reform, how is it good to settle for a gender biased sham?
You are citing problems with the bill that Coakley has not. Coakley’s assertion was that she would not have voted for the bill with the Stupak amendment.
<
p>
<
p>And for what it’s worth, I agree with you that the issues you cite are problems with the bill.
…as an example of passing something that was not “perfect” as a justification for passing a health care reform bill that restricts a woman’s access to medical services is not helping your argument.
I have been a Coakley supporter, and I think she has really stepped in it. I’m reminded of Mrs. Murphy’s Boarding House. In order to get the Fair Housing Act through Congress, it was necessary to include an exemption for “Mrs. Murphy’s Boarding House.” Basically, the statute (you can find it here) exempts small-time landlords from the Act. The idea was that there might be a little old lady somewhere who shouldn’t have to rent space to a black person if she didn’t want to. The rest, as they say, is history.
<
p>Now, I don’t want to draw a comparison between the Mrs. Murphy’s Boarding House exemption and the Stupak Amendment–I don’t know how you go about deciding whether one is worse than the other, or whatever. But it seems to me that there really is no sound justification for exempting Mrs. Murphy from a key civil rights law. And yet surely we’re better off with the FHA than without it?
<
p>Let’s not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They call abortion a wedge issue for a reason. I find it hard to believe the Democratic Party is toying with the idea of giving up on a huge legislative battle over it. Haven’t we learned anything from the last few decades about how not to fall into right-wing traps?
<
p>TedF
with your analysis if its true that Pelosi and others had no way of avoiding this compromise. I think instead the problem is a result of lack of organization by the pro-choice groups to solidify their caucus and fight the measure. The fight must occur before the vote is taken and not after. In fact the vote is not taken if the fight is effective. Or alternatively, both Speaker Pelosi and Reid see a clear path to disabling Stupak via the Senate and conference.