SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
(a) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.–
VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.–19 (A) IN GENERAL.–Notwithstanding any
20 other provision of this title (or any amendment
21 made by this title), and subject to subpara22
graphs (C) and (D)–
23 (i) nothing in this title (or any
24 amendment made by this title), shall be
25 construed to require a qualified health plan
Page 1171 to provide coverage of services described in
2 subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of
3 its essential health benefits for any plan
4 year; and
5 (ii) the issuer of a qualified health
6 plan shall determine whether or not the
7 plan provides coverage of services described
8 in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part
9 of such benefits for the plan year.
10 (B) ABORTION SERVICES.–
11 (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
12 FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.–The services
13 described in this clause are abortions for
14 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap15
propriated for the Department of Health
16 and Human Services is not permitted,
17 based on the law as in effect as of the date
18 that is 6 months before the beginning of
19 the plan year involved.
20 (ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC
21 FUNDING IS ALLOWED.–The services de22
scribed in this clause are abortions for
23 which the expenditure of Federal funds ap24
propriated for the Department of Health
25 and Human Services is permitted, basedPage 118
1 on the law as in effect as of the date that
2 is 6 months before the beginning of the
3 plan year involved.
4 (C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS
5 FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY
6 HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.–
7 (i) DETERMINATION BY SEC8
RETARY.–The Secretary may not deter9
mine, in accordance with subparagraph
10 (A)(ii), that the community health insur11
ance option established under section 1323
12 shall provide coverage of services described
13 in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits
14 for the plan year unless the Secretary–
15 (I) assures compliance with the
16 requirements of paragraph (2);
17 (II) assures, in accordance with
18 applicable provisions of generally ac19
cepted accounting requirements, circu20
lars on funds management of the Of21
fice of Management and Budget, and
22 guidance on accounting of the Govern23
ment Accountability Office, that no
24 Federal funds are used for such cov25
erage; andPage 119
1 (III) notwithstanding section
2 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision
3 of this title, takes all necessary steps
4 to assure that the United States does
5 not bear the insurance risk for a com6
munity health insurance option’s cov7
erage of services described in subpara8
graph (B)(i).
9 (ii) STATE REQUIREMENT.–If a State
10 requires, in addition to the essential health
11 benefits required under section 1323(b)(3)
12 (A), coverage of services described in sub13
paragraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a commu14
nity health insurance option offered in
15 such State, the State shall assure that no
16 funds flowing through or from the commu17
nity health insurance option, and no other
18 Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of
19 providing coverage of services described in
20 subparagraph (B)(i). The United States
21 shall not bear the insurance risk for a
22 State’s required coverage of services de23
scribed in subparagraph (B)(i).
24 (iii) EXCEPTIONS.–Nothing in this
25 subparagraph shall apply to coverage ofPage 120
1 services described in subparagraph (B)(ii)
2 by the community health insurance option.
3 Services described in subparagraph (B)(ii)
4 shall be covered to the same extent as such
5 services are covered under title XIX of the
6 Social Security Act.
7 (D) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED
8 COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES.–
9 (i) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary shall
10 assure that with respect to qualified health
11 plans offered in any Exchange established
12 pursuant to this title–
13 (I) there is at least one such plan
14 that provides coverage of services de15
scribed in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub16
paragraph (B); and
17 (II) there is at least one such
18 plan that does not provide coverage of
19 services described in subparagraph
20 (B)(i).
21 (ii) SPECIAL RULES.–For purposes of
22 clause (i)–
23 (I) a plan shall be treated as de24
scribed in clause (i)(II) if the plan
25 does not provide coverage of servicesPage 121
1 described in either subparagraph
2 (B)(i) or (B)(ii); and
3 (II) if a State has one Exchange
4 covering more than 1 insurance mar5
ket, the Secretary shall meet the re6
quirements of clause (i) separately
7 with respect to each such market.
8 (2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL
9 FUNDS.–
10 (A) IN GENERAL.–If a qualified health
11 plan provides coverage of services described in
12 paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall
13 not use any amount attributable to any of the
14 following for purposes of paying for such serv15
ices:
16 (i) The credit under section 36B of
17 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and
18 the amount (if any) of the advance pay19
ment of the credit under section 1412 of
20 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care
21 Act).
22 (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under
23 section 1402 of thePatient Protection and
24 Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if
25 any) of the advance payment of the reduc122
O:BAIBAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 tion under section 1412 of the Patient
2 Protection and Affordable Care Act).
3 (B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.–In the case
4 of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies,
5 the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not
6 described in subparagraph (A), segregate an
7 amount equal to the actuarial amounts deter8
mined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees
9 from the amounts described in subparagraph
10 (A).
11 (C) ACTUARIAL VALUE OF OPTIONAL
12 SERVICE COVERAGE.–
13 (i) IN GENERAL.–The Secretary shall
14 estimate the basic per enrollee, per month
15 cost, determined on an average actuarial
16 basis, for including coverage under a quali17
fied health plan of the services described in
18 paragraph (1)(B)(i).
19 (ii) CONSIDERATIONS.–In making
20 such estimate, the Secretary–
21 (I) may take into account the im22
pact on overall costs of the inclusion
23 of such coverage, but may not take
24 into account any cost reduction esti25
mated to result from such services, in123
O:BAIBAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C.
1 cluding prenatal care, delivery, or
2 postnatal care;
3 (II) shall estimate such costs as
4 if such coverage were included for the
5 entire population covered; and
6 (III) may not estimate such a
7 cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per
8 month.
9 (3) PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.–No
10 individual health care provider or health care facility
11 may be discriminated against because of a willing12
ness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to
13 the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facil14
ity, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer
15 for abortions.
16 (b) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS
17 REGARDING ABORTION.–
18 (1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARD1
9
ING ABORTION.–Nothing in this Act shall be con20
strued to preempt or otherwise have any effect on
21 State laws regarding the prohibition of (or require22
ment of) coverage, funding, or procedural require23
ments on abortions, including parental notification
24 or consent for the performance of an abortion on a
25 minor.Page 124
1 (2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING
2 ABORTION.–
3 (A) IN GENERAL.–Nothing in this Act
4 shall be construed to have any effect on Federal
5 laws regarding–
6 (i) conscience protection;
7 (ii) willingness or refusal to provide
8 abortion; and
9 (iii) discrimination on the basis of the
10 willingness or refusal to provide, pay for,
11 cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or
12 participate in training to provide abortion.
13 (3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS
14 LAW.–Nothing in this subsection shall alter the
15 rights and obligations of employees and employers
16 under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
17 (c) APPLICATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
18 LAWS.–Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve
19 any health care provider from providing emergency serv20
ices as required by State or Federal law, including section
21 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known as
22 ”EMTALA”).
Both candidates should support this bill. It is a better litmus test for the voting public because this is the bill they would vote on if they were in the Senate now. It is a bill that covers 31 million Americans by 2014, will reduce costs, reduce the deficit, and most importantly the momentum from passing this bill will lay the groundwork for future reforms as well as give President Obama and the Democratic Congress much needed bragging rights going into 2010. To me there is no better litmus test than this measure. What Democrat would oppose a bill that insures more Americans than any previous health care reform plan? That lowers costs? That significantly alters one of the most largest sectors in the economy? That asserts loudly that health care is a right not a privilege? That helps other Democrats stay in power including the President? And finally that protects abortion coverage?
<
p>What Democrat would oppose this bill? Thus far this seems like a bill Capuano would support, no Stupak like provisions here. It does not seem likea bill the Hyde Amendment opposing, abortion funding supporting Martha Coakley could support and that in my view is problematic. If she were to be in the Senate now she would be a vote against the most significant health care reform the US Senate has ever come close to passing and that makes her unfit to be a Senator for our Commonwealth where over 60% of the electorate demands health care reform NOW.
Hello? What about the other candidates?!
let’s not forget that the other candidates said they would vote for the bill with Stupitts included.
<
p>And we also should not forget that fact when going to the polls.
<
p>We saw Martha on Hardball early in the campaign say she opposed the Hyde Amendment but we have not seen her say she would vote against the health care bill if it was Hyde Amendment status quo.
<
p>I am surprised this question has not been put to her and answered by her in the time since her campaign announced it would have voted no on HR 3962 (November 7). Instead we get news stories about the horse race, the polls, and the gender vote and her refusal to expand the debate schedule. Oops my mistake, that was not a news story but an editorial.
<
p>Her campaign did make a statement (below) about Reid’s Senate bill which is surprisingly SILENT on abortion services.
Before reacting, instead of trashing or praising a candidate based on your mere predictions.
Coakley and Capuano have exactly the same position on the merits of Stupitts and the acceptability of health care reform that includes it; they just differ on strategy. Ergo, it’s silly to hypothesize that one will support the Senate bill but the other will not. You are letting your personal dislike of a particular candidate cloud your analysis.
Capuano has been clear about supporting a final bill with Stupak removed.
<
p>Coakley argued on Hardball (video) that she would repeal Hyde in the context of a conversation about health care reform. What she has not done is stated whether Hyde in the Senate bill is or is not a deal breaker for her. “Exactly the same position”? No.
Bean. If you disagree with facts I claim or my conclusions, please put them to words.
<
p>(Editors, is the practice of giving out 3’s without substantiation considered ratings abuse?)
So where do you get off on telling me to watch the video?
<
p>Those comments were prior to the house vote and the Stupak amendment. You’ve taken them out of context.
<
p>I find most of your comments of little merit – it’s clear that you’ll distort anything if you can to try to slam Coakley – in consequence, I’m not interested in spending a lot of time debating with you.
<
p>Martha is against a bill with Stupak. Is she against a bill that does not make good on the “responsibility to make sure people have access to that right.”
Yes, yes, Coakley said she’d like to repeal Hyde. Most people who are pro-choice feel the same way — I imagine that Capuano would vote to repeal Hyde if he had the chance. But this idea that she would vote against health care unless Hyde is simultaneously repealed strikes me as ridiculous, unless you have something (other than the Hardball video, which I have seen and which says nothing about the question of a health care reform bill) to the contrary. I’m fairly confident that you don’t, so I’d suggest dropping this one.
Now that I re-read the transcript I see that Martha never took a stand on whether she would pursue Hyde Amendment repeal as part of the health care reform bill negotiation, although it was asked, and whether she would vote for a bill with the Hyde Amendment as “status quo” however we define that.
<
p>
This was not a personal attack so I do not see why the lowball ratings were justified. Obviously she has now sung a different tune and come out in favor of the Senate bill, but I heard her repeatedly say she would vote against a plan that did not include federal funding for abortion-which basically means a plan that would not overturn Hyde. I am glad her political acumen outweighed her ideological opposition on this point.
I’d also like to see where the “reduction of costs in this bill come from. So far it looks like a giant shell game.
How do you believe that costs are being reduced, then how did you come to the shell game conclusion.
As for the shell game, read below.
which concluded that it would indeed reduce the deficit.
This bill will allow all the revenue (increased taxes…) to be collected starting day 1. However, the new payouts will not start for 4 years. So the balancing of this bill for the first ten years is accomplished by collecting 10 years worth of taxes and paying out 6 years worth of benefits. What happens years 10-20?
<
p>More to come…
is there to pressure to bring those expenses down, not to recoup taxes. It’s a penalty for those who push costs up. The Joint Committee on Taxation’s review had $300 billion more in wages due to the tax as a force to drive down companies expenditures on gold plated health plans. So it that all you got. Nothing else in the plan?
<
p>Or … or just maybe you’re grasping because you are full of it and someone asked you a question that you couldn’t answer.
results largely due to increased taxes and fees. A tax on premiums for “cadillac” health plans in excess of $8,500 per individual or $21,000 per family. An increase in the Medicare payroll tax from 1.45% to 1.95% for individuals with $200k in income or couples with $250k in income. A 5% tax on cosmetic medical procedures. An increase in medical device fees of $20 million. A penalty for failing to purchase insurance. A requirement that employers include the value of health plans on employees W2s. A restriction on health insurance companies that participate in the plan from deducting more than $500k in pay to an executive. An increase from 7.5% to 10% in the floor of when an individual who itemizes can deduct health care expenses. A higher penalty for using health savings account funds for non-medical expenses. A $2,500 cap on contributions to flexible spending account contributions.
can let this “Cadillac” plan provision go through is beyond me. Our little company uses BCBS; guess we’re now driving Coupe DeVilles after we just found out that our premiums for 2010 for family, currently around $18k, will be going up a modest 21%.
<
p>Maybe Sen. Kerry should be back in MA more talking with businesspeople and constituents to see that this idea is going to slam the Commonwealth big time. Especially like the provision, if we decide to move to higher deductibles to get the premium down, to cap Flex accounts at $2,500.
<
p>Start reading the fine print here; you are going to find that the average MA resident is going to see effective decreases in the thousands of dollars in after tax income due to these provisions.
The House bill considered the “Cadillac” plan to be $8,000 individual and $21,000 family. The Senate bill considers the “Cadillac” plan to be $8,500 individual and $23,000 family. There is also an increased threshhold for qualified retirees and certain high-risk proffessionals (whatever that means) to $9,850 individual and $26,000 family. And the amounts are indexed for inflation in the Senate plan (probably not 21% inflation, but better than nothing). And the tax is a 40% tax imposed at the insurer level only on premiums in excess of that amount.
<
p>The effects of this tax will depend on whether insurance premiums rise at a rate higher than inflation. If that happens then this tax will become onerous, if that doesn’t happen then this tax will be managable.
the house increases income taxes on big income earners to fund hcr and the senate goes after health insurance excise taxes. if history is prologue, we’ll see both sources of revenue end up in the final bill, less from each source but combined the same total.
the House version includes a 5.4% surtax on income over $500k individual and $1 million joint and imposes an 8% tax on the payroll of businesses that don’t offer health insurance (phased in for payrolls over $500k, completely phased in by $750k). The surtax is not indexed for inflation. The House version also imposes a 2.5% tax on individuals who don’t obtain insurance (as opposed to the Senate’s phased in penalty ranging from $95 in 2014 to $750 in 2017).
<
p>Of course, the House version also contains the tax on “Cadillac” health plans at 40% of premiums and imposed the tax at an even lower level than the Senate version. And the Senate raising the Medicare payroll tax by 0.5% for incomes over $200k individual $250 joint is projected to raise $54 billion. So the Senate also relies on increased taxes on high income individuals. Just not to the extent that the House version does.
<
p>So it’s not as simple to say that the House pays for HCR by taxing high income individuals and the Senate pays by taxing insurance companies.
“high risk” takes care of the union guys.
<
p>In 2010, our group’s family rate will be close to $22k. The limits you see in both bills take effect in 2013, so even modest rate increases over the next three years put us well over that amount.
<
p>Certainly the tax is assessed on the insurer, but what do you think that will due to premiums / and or deductibles?
I haven’t seen a whip count that supports the conclusion. Do you have one or is it a “belief”?
The Democrats’ healthcare bill
with NO mention of the abortion access issue, which her campaign spoke strongly about when HR3962 passed the house. She takes no position on it here, which is is simply confounding.
<
p>
the details of the bill are reviewed?
<
p>No need to respond – just as you blamed Faulk for Maroney’s fumble in the game the other night, you’ll find something to attack Coakley for, whether merited or not.
has compete control over what it says and when it says it. I am confounded that they chose to issue a press release on the Senate bill and not address the most obvious and compelling issue in this campaign, one arguably of their making when Coakley announced she would have voted against HR 3962. Thank you for replying to my comment and not calling it worthless without explaining why.
Email:
<
p>
<
p>Zzzzz.
A position on the abortion service access? If that’s what you’re saying, I agree.
It is a 2000 page bill and yet you call both candidates statement’s vanilla. If they came out right away with equivocal support, someone (maybe you) would question whether they had actually read the bill and how they can possibly come out in support of the bill so quickly. Follow the leader, blah, blah…
<
p>Which way do you want it? Also, Martha has been all over the place in regards to what position and what votes she would take, not take or refuse to answer. To say anything definitive is not smart if you are going to read something regarding medical devices for instance and be forced to then take a position against the bill.
<
p>The same is true for Capuano, although it seems to me like it is playing out as he thought it would and that should say something about his vote and legislative experience to move HCR forward.
that Capuano and Coakley have both put out rather non-committal statements at this point. That’s fine — I don’t have any problem with them taking some time to figure out what’s in the bill. I am reacting to the accusation (see also here) that there’s something wrong with or suspect about Coakley’s statement.
Neil,
<
p>We should more concerned with the fact that this was a process she did want to continue. For her to say:
<
p>
<
p>It is almost comical at this point. She wanted to kill the process that got us to this point with a hypothetical no vote in the House. But now she is happy with the progress the Senate has made?
<
p>It worries me that she did not think her position through other than to ask Emily’s list where to stand. Her goal would have been to defeat this bill in the House.
I khazeid that comment.
Martha would have voted to kill the bill in the house because of the Stupak language.
<
p>Why did she opine on the vote in the house?
David, is it your analysis of this legislation that it restricts abortion further than Hyde already does? It sounds like that’s what you mean to say.
<
p>If so, can you characterize the difference? Does it have to do with the audits?
<
p>I see that you have posted language from the bill, but is there a functional difference with the status quo?
<
p>I am confused.
The thing is, the status quo is not really comparable to what will happen if a bill anything like this passes, because right now, (1) there is no public option, and (2) there are no federal subsidies to buy health insurance in the private market. Once those two things are created, the question is whether and to what extent federal money may be used to purchase insurance that covers certain abortions. So talking about the “status quo” is I think unhelpful, because anything like this bill represents a dramatic departure from the status quo, even leaving aside the abortion issue.
<
p>All I really know about what the thing actually does is what I quoted from HuffPo in the main post. I haven’t had a chance to read the language more carefully or to seek out more detailed analyses.
Granted it’s at best Macoun to Cox’s Orange Pippin (if it is even apples to apples at all), but it still out to be possible to answer
<
p>1) Do any women lose access to abortion as a result of this language, access that they would otherwise have were there no health legislation?
<
p>2) Does this language in any way go beyond the “spirit” of Hyde, for instance extending Hyde into privately funded options?
<
p>3) If there were no health legislation, but instead there was a bill to replace Hyde with language like the anti-choice language that is in the bill, would there be functional change in how the law affects women?
<
p>–and probably other comparisons as well.
And I’m happy to be shown wrong. That said, here’s my current take:
<
p>1. I don’t see how they would. Under the Senate bill, every state’s exchange will have to offer at least one plan that covers abortion beyond the Hyde restrictions (and at least one that doesn’t). So there will continue to be private insurance that covers abortion beyond Hyde.
<
p>2. Again, I don’t think so, since the exchanges will have to offer policies that go beyond Hyde. This was the big argument with respect to Stupitts — that it would result in insurers not offering policies that cover abortion beyond Hyde because of the administrative headache in offering two separate policies, abortion “riders,” etc. I think (but am not certain) that the Senate version avoids that outcome.
<
p>3. I don’t understand this question. The “anti-choice language that is in the bill” has to do with mechanisms that won’t exist if there isn’t a health care reform, and are all pretty much based on the Hyde dividing line (presently set at rape, incest, and the life of the mother). Nothing in the bill changes Hyde. So I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
I probably should have put it more like this:
<
p>Hyde establishes a standard or principle that applies to federal spending as a whole. Does the language of the bill establish standard or principle that is different? If you were to repeal Hyde’s standard and adopt the bill’s standard in its place, fr all Federal spending, would it make any difference?
<
p>I think you tentatively answered this (as No) in #2.
<
p>Sounds to me as though Capuano has bragging rights on this issue, in that the Senate has restored the Hyde status quo, and could not have done so if the bill hadn’t passed the House warts and all.
Stupak was on Hardball two nights ago. His idea of “status quo” was congressional health plan that does not offer abortions services as part of their insurance policy offerings because every member gets a Federal subsidy. I don’t know if he’s right on the facts about this but it’s what he said. You could tell he’s taken a boatload of pressure. His argument is that status quo means no abortion services and that’s all his amendment does but also that he’s willing to work work out language differences. It’s hard to parse the posture and the rhetoric from the reality. He threatened to vote NO on health care if the status quo was not maintained.
<
p>Many if not most who support abortion services as a pro-choice policy understand “status quo” to mean that they would be able to buy health insurance through the exchange (including the subscriber-financed public option) that would provide abortion services; that these plans could be accounted for so that moneys were kept separate.
<
p>The biggest challenge is to figure out how to do this for people who receive Federal subsidies for their health insurance. This may be the rub that, if Stupak’s threats are to be believed, will be the battleground (if he’s got the numbers to make good on the threat.)
that the Federal Employee Health Benefits plans do not cover abortion beyond Hyde.
<
p>
is necessarily different from the rest of us who are not federal employees.
From what I gather this bill has Uncle Sam providing money to those who qualify to go out and purchase a plan of their choosing from among participating plans. When Republicans advocate vouchers and concerns are raised about how they might, however indirectly, help religious schools the answer always is it’s not the government choosing the school, it’s the family. Sounds like the same here – the government is not choosing, and thus not endorsing, the health plan or what it offers, but the family is. Besides, it’s not like there’s an abortion epidemic or lots of woman that are chomping at the bit to get one once they get a plan that pays for it. Even among those who happen to purchase a plan that happens to cover abortion, I don’t see the vast majority ever availing themselves of that coverage.
I suppose you’re right when a person takes a voucher to the public insurance market but that may be “different” from the federally-managed insurance exchange. It seems the exchange has solved the problem by offering two plans, one with abortion services, one without.
Alas.
<
p>The government (me) is “paying” so that is why there is a connection.
I’m just asking for a little consistency, which I would expect you of all people to understand:)
If ANY member of the Democratic Caucus joins a Republican filibuster of healthcare reform with a public option, the Caucus must immediately strip that Senator of all Committee Chairmanships.
<
p>Since we launched this campaign just three weeks ago, MoveOn members have joined us in demanding accountability. Now, we’re merging our campaign with signatures gathered by our friends at CREDO Action and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee too and together we’re ready to deliver signatures for 410,649 Americans today.
<
p>It was only three months ago when the public option was declared dead and we were all told to accept defeat.
<
p>Now, we’re only weeks away from finishing what we started on March 25, when my brother Howard and I launched the Stand with Dr. Dean campaign. We stood up to draw a line in the sand, demanding inclusion of a public option in any healthcare bill passed this year and you stood with us.
<
p>You got the public option this far, now we need to bring it home to win.
<
p>We can’t let one Turncoat Senator kill the bill. Take the time out of your day — over your lunch break — on your way home from work — tomorrow on your way to work — as soon as you can — and deliver the signatures to your Senators.
<
p>SIGN UP TO DELIVER NOW
We Republicans have been looking or more and more ways to win over the people and I think this effort shows how partisan Democrats are. You are sounding and looking like a bunch of school yard bullies who not only are telling Republicans they have no input into any process but now you want to punish Democrats for voting for their principals.
<
p>Please continue this effort and let more of Americans see what tyranny feels like only this time from within our own country.
In both parties, members of the caucus owe procedural votes to their leader in return for their assignments and are allowed to vote their conscience on passage.
but my feeling is politicians should vote for the right thing and not whatever the party wants. You may be surprised to know that I vote for whomever I want to vote for and not what party they are in. It just so happens that I rarely get to vote for a Democrat since they cater to the Democrats and thus have differing ideology but I care far more about conservatism than Republicans.
as part of the discussion about Lieberman’s threat to vote no on cloture in the Senate on the health care bill, which is tp vote against ending debate, which is a way to keep a bill from getting a vote on passage.
<
p>I’m afraid the Democrats and Republicans are more alike than you might think. They both have an interest in serving the corporate interests that fund their campaigns. If the D’s and R’s could move toward public finance of campaigns, we could get our guys to vote more consistently for our interests as opposed to corporate interests.
…lots of it. Enzi was on the Finance Committee Committee to the very last second. No, what you want is agreement with Republican positions.
<
p>I guess I figure if the American people had wanted a public health bill written by Republicans, they’d have actually voted for Republicans.
this summer I watched CSPAN during the committee markup meetings. the members of the committees are Republicans and Democrats roughly in proportion to the numbers of R’s and D’s in Congress. Every member could offer and amendment to the committee’s bill. Each amendment got time for debate. Then there was a vote to determine if the amendment would be included in the bill. To say republicans “had no say” is factually wrong. Many amendments can be identified as from Republicans.
<
p>Don;t believe everything you hear from conservative news sources.