"If I was in Congress my vote on the Stupak ammendment would have been..."

"If I was in Congress my vote on the Stupak ammendment would have been..."

and that's the ultimate question.

Now we need to find a solution that will still allow this bill to pass.

Since discussion is all about the propriety of voting for the bill with the amendment in it, I am curious about views of the amendment itself.

I usually (not always, but usually) post polls because I am genuinely curious about the results.

I don't know that anybody at DU supports that amendment. In that regard, I suppose your poll is useful.

But as I say at least once a week, we live where we live. Change Minds, Change Votes. We aren't doing that.

And then maybe pass the bill, as weak as it is.

No, it wouldn't pass.

Then what?

Using single payer as a starting point, and "settling" for a REAL Public Option, if we must.

Let alone one as blatantly criminal as an insurance company?

It's a completely different thing from a mandatory Social Security or Medicare deduction. Had a REAL reform bill, such as HR676 passed, that's probably what would have happened. Increase the Medicare deduction, everyone is covered, no CEO's taking forced payments and buying mansions and Rolls Royces with involuntary payments.

But this is literally fascism. Corporate power, enforced by the state. :scared:

So your poll is kinda handy as a troll barometer.

They should see who clicked yes and then boot their asses out as disruptors.

I am considered a disruptor my many for opposing voting for any bill with Stupak in it.

Others are considered disruptors for supporting Stupak.

That's cutting it a little fine.

That's the point.

Long live democracy.

Which imparts a super magical goodness to the rest of the country

who does.

As I've said before, some of these blue dogs come from districts with lots of anti-choice fundies and they have to be anti-choice in order to stand a chance. But there's no reason they needed to do so much grandstanding about it. When a Republican claims that health care money is going to abortions they simply could've said "That is simply not true, the Hyde Amendment already prohibits that and anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong".

Stupak and others who pushed this to the floor are assholes because they made everybody go on record about this. I'm sure that some of the Democrats who voted for Stupak felt compelled to because they risked being labeled pro-abortion if they voted NAY. But some of those Dems probably would've preferred that the amendment never be introduced in the first place so that they didn't have to go on record period. This is the kind of shit that I expect to see when Republicans control the House.

In case you are wondering, I didn't vote either way.

I have a general idea but would like to be better informed.

This applies to the exchange.

I am thinking it's that no exchange offered plan.

I am assuming the parent companies can still offer choice-friendly plans outside the presumed cost-containment powers of the exchange.

(That's a clarification, not a defense. I am pig-biting mad about this.)

that is federal or state oriented. You can purchase a supplemental plan. In other words, the federal govt. will not allow any money from them or states to pay for an abortion if your are getting credits/subsidies, etc. to be in their insurance exchange.
I think I got that correct but legislation is a lot of double talk.
Here is a link to the actual amendment: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108
I would have voted no and then voted for the entire bill. Stupid blue dog Dems holding the bill hostage to get this horrid amendment passed sickens me.

My understanding is that it requires that any private plan offered in "the exchange" cannot pay for a pregnancy termination. Non-coverage as a requirement of exchange participation.

I am not running around with my hair on fire for nuthin' today.

I am in shock.

Bad with double letters... my secret shame. Now not so secret.

:cry:

If I knew that the ONLY way to get 218 votes was to have the Stupak ammendment in the bill, I would have voted for it.

If I knew that it was just politicing, and that it would most likely have passed either way, I would have voted against it.

I wanted the bill to pass - and i'd be willing to do whatever it took to get it to pass. It passed, mission accomplished. The Stupak ammendment can be dealt with later.. either by having it removed, or finding a loop-hole or work around.

Last night Congress had to deal with the cards in front of them. And, to many blue-dogs, this issue is a big one. Some of them probably won't win re-election next time because they live in heavily RED districts (and before you say "GOOD", realize that a right-winged Republican will probably be occupying the seat instead). They have to walk a very thin line to keep their jobs.. and we do not want to become the small tent Party that republicans are hell bent on becoming (think NY23).