Comments on: Unintended Consequences of a Single Payer System

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:36:31 +0000

kranky kritter,

Third party candidates don’t have to win to impact the issues: http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/the-case-for-three/

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:21:29 +0000

If the Democrats push through an anti choice “healthcare reform” bill, I will vote party line Green in November 2010.

Since only democrats and republicans are viable, you subtract a vote from the liberal agenda of the democrats, which helps the conservative agenda. You’re stuck with the system, just like the rest of us.

Go ahead, pretend the greens are viable and can impact the issues you’re complaining about. We save the best lies for ourselves, right?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:55:00 +0000

Frank: “I doubt that the plans offered through the exchange will offer the coverage at all. With all the new mandates placed on the insurers, I doubt there will be any “freebies” included.”

Sure there won’t be “freebies”. But if it was profitable for the insurance company to offer abortion coverage as part of their plan before, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be profitable for them to do so (a) within the exchange in addition to their non-abortion covering plan (for a slightly higher premium of course, since it is covering an additional procedure), and (b) as supplemental rider coverage for those who do qualify for subsidies.

I could go into more details but it’s off topic, and i don’t want to detract further from your main point of the post which I agree with.

By: libhomo

libhomo — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:42:21 +0000

The Hyde Amendment is misogynistic, fundamentalist, and racist. It should have been overturned years ago.

If the Democrats push through an anti choice “healthcare reform” bill, I will vote party line Green in November 2010. I am so sick of militant, anti American fundamentalists abusing the political process to push through their Taliban style political agenda.

By: Frank Hagan

Frank Hagan — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:47:55 +0000

Brian, I generally use the accepted terms for various political positions, even if I disagree with them. I don’t call abortion “murder”, even though I believe it is the taking of an innocent human life, because the generally accepted term is “abortion”. The use of non-accepted terms is unnecessarily confrontative, and wouldn’t be appropriate for use in a forum such as Donklephant.

By: Frank Hagan

Frank Hagan — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:18:09 +0000

Mike, thanks for the clarification. I had thought that none of the “standard plans” offered in the insurance exchange could cover abortion based on the early stories I read. The reasoning was that the ability to be able to offer your product in the exchange was a form of government subsidy. A kind of “marketing subsidy” to the companies if you will. But many of the editorials I have since read do clarify that its the individual buying insurance within the exchange with “federal affordability credits” that would be directly affected.

Of course, the “chilling effect” is still present, and I doubt that the plans offered through the exchange will offer the coverage at all. With all the new mandates placed on the insurers, I doubt there will be any “freebies” included. That probably means that those with private insurance through their employers will drop the coverage as well if the exchange products must be “equivalent to” the private product.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:32:18 +0000

I think if the government made it illegal for republicans to be fat, then maybe no abortions would be a good trade off.

By: Jim F

Jim F — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:12:22 +0000

You always make it hard to comment on purpose. This is where i quite as you keep taking it off. This is the third time. And i put down what the passward said too. What party are you from?

By: Jim F

Jim F — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:07:25 +0000

As everyone knows,the common laborer is still starting out under $10 an hour. With inflation as high as it kept gooing in the past 25 years,how do they expect anyone to pay for any insurence? They already know people are loosing their homes with state taxes and other things to keep living. These people better go back to school.

By: Brain

Brain — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:47:21 +0000

This post needs a correction. The phrase “pro-life Republican” should be changed to “anti-choice Republican”. Thanks!

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:59:22 +0000

“But the Stupak amendment… actually goes much farther than just banning direct funding of abortion.”

The amendment allows for private plans to be offered in the exchange that cover abortions but people who qualify for subsidies can’t buy them. The amendment also allows rider insurance to be purchased that that covers abortion. Considering insurance companies have a financial incentive to offer this coverage, I see nothing in this amendment that would prevent someone from getting coverage for abortion if they want it.

But regarding the main point of your post: I agree. The Republicans have been saying all of this time that this bill means that the government will have its nose in your private health care decisions. I think they’ve exaggerated that claim, but it is ironic that now we are seeing what pro-choicers would describe as the government sticking its nose into private health care decisions, and before the bill has even been made law.