I have been spending a few days down in Phoenix, getting my fill of all the analysis and punditry from FOX, CNN, NPR, Arizona Republic etc. etc. The talk is all about the Health Care Bill and the Fort Hood killer. The debate on the latter topic is predictable, with those on the right calling him a terrorist and denouncing the political correctness of the main stream media for refusing to do so. We can discuss that another day.
What struck me in particular about the House Bill on Health Care is the concession by Democrats and presumably the President to toss the pro-choice folks under the bus to get this 2000 page bill passed. I have no idea what is exactly in those 2000 pages and I doubt anyone does. But apparently there can be no Federal funding or subsidies for insurance plans (private or public) which cover abortions, except in limited cases. This seems like a pretty big concession for the President and the Democrats to have made.
It got me thinking. This is one of those issues ( like same sex marriage ) where you can see a major difference between Canadians and Americans. There is no way that most Canadians or any political leader would have let this one get away. But yet, aside from some minor commentary on this specific matter, there seems to be very little concern that pro- choice advocates in the US were so easily tossed under the bus to get this bill passed. It is another reminder to me that the President and the Democrats seems to have very few, if any, non-negotiable items with which they will stick, if it may result in negative political fall out. At one point, for example, Obama seemed ready to ditch the public insurance option to get his Bill through. (He may still have to.)
Whether in relation to foreign (Iran, Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) or domestic policy issues, everything for this Administration seems to be negotiable and up for grabs. There are no sacred cows. Maybe this is good - a sign of flexibility. Or maybe it is not so good - shifting sands where no-one can really count on anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You do realize that it's not the President's Bill, right? It's the House's. So if anyone threw pro-choicers under the bus, it was Pelosi. That's how it works down there. Legislative first, then Executive. Didn't you read that anywhere in the Arizona Republic?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Mike?
ReplyDeleteYou might be aware that the President was twisting a lot of arms to get this "House" Bill passed, and praised it effusively afterwards. There was no threat of veto. Only lavish praise. I think he and Nancy discuss now and then, don't you? But thanks anyway for your informative lesson in the American system of government. And continue to defend your guy, no matter what!
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteThe bill passed through the house by five votes. Presumably, without the abortion concession, it would not have passed.
Do you think Obama should have insisted on including coverage for abortions, at the cost of the bill being defeated?
Ron
Dear Professor Klar,
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that your parting quip to Mike is a bit of a cheap shot, don't you agree?
I'm not aware that this chap has "defended his guy, no matter what." Certainly not in his latest post.
Indeed, it is you who have acted predictably, not reasonably, in condemning the president with a series of unsubstantiated generalizations appended to the end of your initial post.
Your unflagging reader,
Sir Sedgewick
Yeah, Mike, I don't know if I buy that argument. Obama has repeatedly said nothing about issues he claims to support. For example, he said not a word about same-sex marriage before it was judged -- and ultimately banned -- by Maine voters. And then he said nothing before his own party voted to ban the funding of abortions. I too understand how American government works and, as far as I know, presidents have a significant degree of power of persuasion. Obama is choosing not to use it.
ReplyDeleteRon:
ReplyDeleteThe bill might still have passed... who knows. The Dems have a big majority in the House, this is supposedly a do or die issue for them, and Obama has clout. As far as I understand it, as it now stands in the Bill, thousands of women who presently have private health insurance which covers abortions will lose this insurance. This is because any insurance co. which receives Federal subsidies will no longer be able to offer this coverage, if they wish to receive Federal money. Since most ( maybe all) insurance companies will receive subsidies in this new plan, this therefore removes existing insurance for abortions for those who now have it. Even Obama admits that this is not appropriate since the Bill was supposed to be abortion neutral. Are abortion rights worth it? You decide.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that clarification. I think the issue is not just the right to abortion but the right to enter a contract for abortion insurance, and the negating of that right is appalling.
Ron
I am having a hard time understanding why Obama-supporters (particularly the ones commenting here) are not upset that he has enthusiastically supported a bill that doesn't allow insurers to cover abortion. Can someone explain?
ReplyDeleteA great exchange: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Brookings_vs_Emanuel.html
ReplyDeleteHi Prof. Klar,
ReplyDeleteI think the Democratic leadership--the President included-- thinks swallowing the Stupak amendment was worth it, for now, to get some inertia behind the bill.
They're making a reckless bet that they'll be able to weaken the amendment later, in conference. Since the amendment's in spirit only maintains existing law prohibiting federal funding of abortion, the Democrats seem to think they can just massage the language to make it clear that the provision doesn't prohibit anything that isn't already verboten. But if you read the thing, it seems pretty airtight. It'd be hard to water this thing down. Insurers are allowed to offer supplemental abortion insurance, but under strict conditions--maybe unworkable conditions: all costs of the supplemental policy, including administration, must be funded only by the supplemental premiums. For a big insurer, that sounds almost impossible.
Anyway. If the Senate bill doesn't have a similar provision, expect the leadership to try to emasculate the House language. As for Obama's views, he made them clear when he repealed the global abortion gag rule. I'm sure he'll push hard during conference to get the amendment seriously weakened.
Not that the healthcare bill is strong enough to do anything useful. The Republicans have been canny about this, and the President's been naive. If he wanted a centrist bill, he should have started from the Left and worked toward the middle. He didn't. Instead, he optimistically offered a centrist plan-- keep the private insurers, don't strip their antitrust protections, don't change the model from employer-based, don't go for single-payer, don't do much about cost controls, don't change fee-for-service, waffle on a public option which will be weak anyway-- and the Republicans unanimously responded by giving him the finger. They painted the modest, centrist plan as crypto-fascist, made no counter-proposals, and showed no signs of caring about any concessions he made. They appeared on television claiming that this would "kill Medicare"-- this from the party that's hated Medicare since its inception.
So this isn't even going to be a centrist bill: it's going to be a centre-right bill. Ugh.
-scott
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteHave you abandoned ITP?
Or, perhaps you could post a note,
letting us know when it will resume,
so your loyal combatants don't have to check every day.
Ron