Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Are any other legal health care procedures also prohibited?

If I was a Republican, I would say that this was a slippery slope to disallowing all procedures that could potentially result in the death of a human. Glenn Beck's appendicitis would just have to cure itself.

Posted by: Jordan G | November 8, 2009 10:02 AM

Fuck religion. Fuck the GOP.

Posted by: democommie | November 8, 2009 10:14 AM

Ready to elect libertarians yet?

RAmen

Posted by: uke | November 8, 2009 10:39 AM

uke: Ha! The Republican party's been electing self-identifying libertarians for years. Its funny how, once in office, they all seem to develop a much firmer respect for "community values" and the compulsory power of government. Though, given their views, a true-blue objectivist in office would likely be just as bad in its own ways as having to deal with these yokels.

As for having abortion funding being restricted, its unfortunate, but considering how limited abortion services already are because Congress and the courts aren't willing to defend providers from legislative persecution (or physical violence, for that matter) at the state level, I doubt it will worsen the already sorry state of abortion provision or amateur-abortion-related deaths in the U.S.

Posted by: Julian | November 8, 2009 11:10 AM

I'm almost tempted to tell those women who want children, but who want them at the right time, to pull a Lysistrata.

Posted by: Katharine | November 8, 2009 11:15 AM

As if to underscore my point about Altmire, there's this. It would seem that the Catholic bishops already said they favor the bill with Stupak's amendment.

Altmire's a hack, and he's looking for an excuse to be one. No other way around it.

Posted by: Jeff | November 8, 2009 11:26 AM

eric stated:

I wonder what will happen to Joseph Cao, the only Republican who voted for final passage?

Increase his chances to get re-elected. Rep. Cao's district is heavily Democratic. He beat the incumbent William J. Jefferson. Jefferson was the crook who was caught stashing cash in his freezer. Jefferson survived a 2008 Democratic primary which he should have lost by effectively playing the race card.

Here's a NYTs' link to the vote: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/887

Dennis Kucinich voted "No" while the most articulate single-payer advocate Anthony Weiner voted "Yes". I don't know Kucinich's rationale.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 8, 2009 12:25 PM

As if to underscore my point about Altmire, there's this. It would seem that the Catholic bishops already said they favor the bill with Stupak's amendment.

Posted by: borg | November 8, 2009 12:49 PM

Has anyone pointed out to Rep. Altmire that the man to whom he has given control over his Congressional vote is a sworn agent of the head of a foreign nation?

As for Michael Heath's question @ # 6 -

Feministe: The Stupak Amendment was introduced by an anti-choice Democrat and a Republican. It will prevent abortion care from being covered not only through government-run insurance plans, but by private insurers as well. The current compromise on abortion, the Capps Amendment, already prevents federal dollars from funding abortions; the difference is that it allows women to choose plans where abortion is covered, and to pay premiums for those plans out of their own pockets. That way, no federal or taxpayer dollars go to abortion, but women can still access the procedure. The Stupak Amendment would break that compromise. From the RH Reality Check article on the amendment, the Stupak Amendment would:

*Prohibit individuals who receive the affordability tax credits from purchasing a private insurance plan that covers abortion, despite the fact that a majority of health insurance plans currently cover abortion.
*Result in a de facto ban on private insurance companies providing abortion coverage in the health insurance exchange, since the vast majority of participants would receive affordability tax credits.
*Prohibit the public option from providing abortion care, despite the fact that it would be funded through private premium dollars.

It would, in effect, remove abortion coverage even from private health insurance.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 8, 2009 12:53 PM

mroberts, it's because the Congress is packed with fundies.

Posted by: Katharine | November 8, 2009 1:08 PM

I'm honest, this scares the shit out of me. Anyone got a list of folks in Virginia who will give Essure to a 21-year-old woman who most definitely doesn't want kids?

I mean, apparently these fucking stupid troglodytes haven't considered the fact that occasionally, for example, women get raped and contraception occasionally fails.

I may send a nasty letter to Virginian congresspeople.

Posted by: Katharine | November 8, 2009 1:15 PM

Who voted for HR 3962:

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)

Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao

Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Klein (FL)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

Posted by: Katharine | November 8, 2009 1:17 PM

mroberts, you're a sanctimonious piece of shit who hates women.

Get your own fucking uterus.

Seriously, most christians are insane pieces of shit.

Posted by: Katharine | November 8, 2009 1:32 PM

We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care

What an utterly, astoundingly, ridiculously stupid statement. Demonizing as greedy seems to be the favorite tactic of the left when they are trying to push for something and it's amazing to me that people still fall for it. The REALITY is this:

biz.yahoo.com/p/522qpmd.html

An average of 10% profit margin for the biggest health insurers? That's hardly "predatory".

Let's take a look at a bigger view:

biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html

Wow, brewers are making 18.90% profit margins! Does that mean the Democrats are going to start up a national brewery to save us all from the greedy, predatory brewers? What about those railroads netting 12.40%? Need to start up a national freight railroad as well?

There are many other industries making far higher margins than the health insurance industry. But taking over other industries won't be nearly as effective in increasing the number of people dependant on the government and the Democratic party, therefore they aren't targets. The argument that we need to go after the health insurers because they are posting "predatory" profits is utterly stupid.

Posted by: mroberts | November 8, 2009 1:43 PM

How about this: Because fetuses are not legally people and most abortions take place before the fetus develops a nervous system.

The abortion issue is a mixed bag; it requires defining what a person is and when life 'begins' and also requires considering the person carrying the fetus as well. You anti-choicers are always all about the fetus, but you don't consider the cost to the mother or to society at large.

Posted by: Katharine | November 8, 2009 1:50 PM

Pierce R. Butler - thanks for expanding the perspective on the Stupak amendment, but what you blockquoted in your comment does not answer my questions.

What you provided was a description of the Stupak Amendment that framed it in a way that argues reasonable people should dissent, a position which I happen share to given that I thought the Capps Amendment was smart though not optimal policy and after having considered Rep. Stupak's arguments on C-SPAN several days ago. However, my question related to the constitutionality of the amendment in general, where it appears to deny people without access to employer-provided health insurance access to procure insurance for the same legal medical procedure.

What I learned from the Tiller murder (I don't follow the abortion debate very closely but did for awhile in the aftermath of his murder) was that thousands of women planning to give birth run into horrible medical complications which are devastating to the family and where access to medical care has been severely constrained and requires costly procedures that run into the thousands of dollars. I had no idea this problem existed in our country. To prohibit insurance for that aspect of medical care during a pregnancy with health or life-threatening complications seems not only clearly unconstitutional and bad policy, but highly immoral if not downright evil.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 8, 2009 1:58 PM

Are any other legal health care procedures also prohibited?

No shit. This is beyond stupid. Did Oklahoma suddenly take over the Federal government?

Posted by: Shay | November 8, 2009 2:10 PM

Metro,

Single-payer in reality is not as golden as the proponents say it is.

city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

As with any government program, it results in low quality, long waits, and rationing. Government is extremely inefficient and wasteful and it has limited resources. If Nancy Pelosi was really about "competition" (the rationale behind the public option) she would allow people to shop for insurance across state lines.

A huge reason insurance is expensive is because of mandates. If government didn't require insurance companies to include all kinds of crazy coverages in even their most basic policies, costs would drop significantly. I go to the doctor about once every four years if I happen to need an antibiotic because I'm sick, so why do I need all those extra mandated coverages?? It costs me an arm and a leg to carry the policy I have at work when all I need is catastrophic coverage. Do I really need to pay hundreds of dollars per month so I can go to the doc once every four years? It's stupid.

Government should get out of the health care business. Let insurance companies design their own policies based on what their customers are demanding. Additionally, allow people to shop for policies in any state. The free market is more than capable of providing a reasonably priced product for every niche need in the market.

Posted by: mroberts | November 8, 2009 2:28 PM

To clarify some idiotic propaganda being foisted on this thread I'd like to provide some perspective from an economic slant.

We spend about 16% of our GDP on health care. It's also rising due to an increased ability to offer innovative treatments, increased specialization that yields greater income for health care providers, and also because we have an aging demographic. It's irrelevant whether this cost is financed in the private or public sector, this is the cost, it's rising, and it's going to rise at an ever-increasing rate. Switching to the public sector doesn't mean "we can't afford it". If we switch to the public sector and gain nothing from doing so financially, than there is no economic harm. The cost on all of us remains the same, we can not separate out the private aspect of our GDP from the public aspect, they are conjoined into one $14 trillion or so per year economy.

We can not afford for this rate of 16% to continue to increase. That is what we can not afford, not whether we finance this cost more with public funds rather than private funds which is entirely besides the point (though worthy of debate on other matters such as which approach yields the best balance of outcomes and cost).

Therefore, we have two imperatives - grow the economy in a manner that reduces health care as a percentage of the economy, and two - cut costs per head in spite of demographics that will make this a big challenge. If we shift private funds to public funds and that reduces costs while either improving outcomes or keeping them stable, than that is smart economically. Saying we can't afford to finance insuranc with public funds completely misses the point that we are already paying for these services and our current approach has already been established as unviable.

Our aging demographic provides two challenges - it means health care per capita will rise because older people use more health care and because our ability to treat the elderly's conditions continues to rise.

If we didn't pass health care reform, those increasing costs will not go away, so arguing that "we can't afford it" entirely misses the point since ignoring the problem doesn't solve it, it enhances the damage being done. Only an idiot would make such an argument, or a liar.

When we benchmark other developed nations we learn several lessons:

1) There are countries yielding equal and even significantly superior health care for around 8 - 11% of GDP. However they too are seeing costs go up faster than the rate of inflation and as a share of their GDP, so merely mimicing them will not on its own fix this problem. Their costs are rising because they share two of the three challenges we face: innovations in care that create additional treatment opportunities and an aging demographic that increasingly consumes such treatments.

2) The most successful determinant to lowering costs and increasing coverage (both people and treatment) is either single-payer or a mixed-model private/public like that which is proposed by the Democrats. The single-payer or mixed model payer can work where medical care exists in a mixed-model health delivery system like we've had in the U.S. and will continue to have (private hospitals, but also public ones like the U. of Michigan, private practicians contracting with public facilities, there are many combinations and these still work in other countries like Japan and France).

3) The primary reason these other countries yield lower costs is because they pay their doctors and other health care vendors less money given the government's buying power. While they end up with less money, they do have an advangate in enjoying lower operational costs to practice in those countries (i.e. service provider's revenue is lower, but their income after expenses does not go down by the same percentage rate given their costs to practice are not as prohibitive). My study shows that health care specialists would end up getting paid less even after considering their reduced costs, though many of these country's general practioners make more.

4) One can't merely compare revenue between our service providers and other countries, our costs to practice health care in the U.S. is also far higher for these reasons:
a) Educational costs to practice medicine are much higher
b) Administrative costs to collect payment for services is ridiculous - dealing with multiple insurance providers is both expensive, complicated, and they are notoriously stingy in paying both in what they claim they'll pay for and paying late. In addition they often deny coverage and the health care provider is forced to then collect from patients after exhausting collection efforts with insurance providers. That effort is also time-consuming and results in late payments and often only partial collection. Net effect, the medical care providers finance the private health insurance industry.
c) Malpractice rates remain high for several reasons, primarily because of defective care. Therefore the market price for malpractice insurance is much higher here in than in countries who've adopted world-class manufacturing-like methods to reduce malpractice rates without denying their citizens access to the courts to seek justice or juries the right to dispense such justice. Some have already implemented such practices here, U of MI have improved their remedial action policy in a manner that's cut malpractice rates by 50% in a couple of years after implementation of these new processes and policies.

If we look historically at effective tax rates on income, we have ample room to tax this initiative in a manner where we do not generate any additional national debt x number of years after implementation, where "x" is relatively short. I happen to disagree with how the Democrats are collecting this tax (on the most well-off), I'd prefer we collect it on a VAT which is rebated on exports. But again, history shows we can easily finance this intiative given relatively low historical tax rates and the fact that private expenditures is causing that method of payment to skyrocket while other countries have solved this problem by using a mixed model of financing.

When it comes to our current debt, future debt based on budgeted deficits in the next 10+ years, and unfunded liabilities that have not yet been realized (the latter equals $56 trillion), taxation alone can not save us. Our only solution is economic growth. Becoming competitive on health care with other developed countries like the Dems are starting us down a path which help accomplish is this not merely smart policy - it's our only valid choice if want to remain globally competitive for intellectual and financial capital.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 8, 2009 3:01 PM

Excellent post, Michael. I wish there were anyone in Congress approaching the problem using this type of analysis.

An aside with regard to malpractice insurance: It has long since been demonstrated that the periodic "crises" follow a regular cycle and are almost entirely related to the way the insurance industry invests its premiums. It has nothing to do with jury verdicts.

Posted by: kehrsam | November 8, 2009 3:20 PM

Thanks kehrsam. I did forget to leave out one other reason our costs are relatively higher that also presents an interesting paradox.

We know many patients with great insurance coverage are often over-treated. While the Republicans like to whine about this being solely driven by fears of losing a malpractice suit, the economic studies I've read have found over-treatment is primarily driven by practioners increasingly becoming financial investors/partners with medical testing providers or specialists. So they have a financial motivation to over-treat justified by defending the risk they'll get sued by not prescribing enough tests/consulations/drugs/treatments.

I would think such over-treatment would be a problem more with a government run insurance program not minding the tax-payers monies. Yet the studies I've read said no, that this problem is more frequently discovered within employer-financed insurance programs. My individual plan is extremely stingy on covering testing or specialists not tied to hospitalization.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 8, 2009 3:37 PM

Michael Heath-Excellent analysis. I would take issue with the idea that innovation necessarily increases costs. Look at the computer industry-there innovation has driven costs down, not up.

In many ways, in our economy we have seen a bifurcation between products and services that are globally sourced, where costs have fallen overall and those that are sourced domestically, like health care and education where costs have risen inexorably.

I think keeping health care cost growth at the general rate of inflation is probably unachievable unless we can outsource much of it to China or India (not totally out of the question). But getting US costs in line with other countries is quite doable.

Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 8, 2009 3:45 PM

Brandon @ # 38: I don't understand how the amendment will result in all insurance plans dropping abortion coverage.

Do you not expect just about every basic health-insurance plan in the US to be retailored to meet new Federal standards?

Read more about it here.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 8, 2009 3:52 PM

Justice League @ 43:

I would take issue with the idea that innovation necessarily increases costs. Look at the computer industry-there innovation has driven costs down, not up.

My background is in the computer industry so I'm well aware of how that industries prices for a given unit of performance or memory have gone down. Their products have also driven operating costs down and improved productivity for busines in general. However, like I stated earlier, economists find innovation in health care increase costs overall because more older people are getting treated for items where in the past there was no available treatment - that is enough to overcome the benefits we see from innovations that provide superior treatment for chronic diseases incurred by younger individuals.

Some of the rise in healthcare costs can also be attributed to discretionary services fueled by innovation, like the large rise of cosmetic enhancements done for purely discretionary reasons. What I was attempting to do in responding to the idiocy showing up in this thread was distinguish that health care rising from 5% in the 1950s is not all negative - innovations have fueled increased demand that have caused consumers to seek out more care than their ancestors.

The car industry is another industry where increasing overall quality and providing additional safety features has caused car prices to go up over time, not down.

I wish all industries enjoyed cost/performance trends like we see in the computer industry and I beleive that may be possible in the health care industry, but as best as I can tell, that's years down the road assuming we never again lose control of the country to the anti-science conservatives.

Posted by: Michael Heath | November 8, 2009 4:04 PM

I don't, in fact, support banning all abortions after the fetus develops a nervous system, which for that matter doesn't take place until at least 5 weeks after conception. I support the choice to abort for a woman's entire pregnancy.

Posted by: Katharine | November 8, 2009 4:33 PM

Michael Heath @ # 48: The single-payer plans I've seen discussed required Americans to still pay premiums and some also included co-pays.

A good point: the rhetoric of "single-payer" doesn't consistently distinguish between those plans requiring payment by premium and those of payment by taxes. I'm half tempted to say that the difference is semantic when the "premiums" are rendered to a government agency - but doing so would line me up with too many libertarians, so I'll pass.

Though if the final product of legislative sausage-making mandates buying coverage from an existing corporate insurer, I intend to defy it - so maybe I'd better get used to associating with certain libbies...

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 8, 2009 5:26 PM

mrroberts @ 30:

If you are a traditional conservative who presumably values the ideal of a government small enough to drown in a bathtub, how can you justify the state dictating how a woman can or cannot govern her own body?

Although I do not support late term abortion as a form of back-end birth control, for the state to take such an action smacks of personal governmental intrusion to the highest degree.

So which is it?

Do you like big government, or just like it in examples where it suits your ideology?

Posted by: CHV | November 8, 2009 6:26 PM

Michael Heath- I'm not sure whether the 10% of GDP figures for Canada includes facilities costs. Even if not, it cannot be doubted that Canada spends much less proportionately than the US, for similar outcomes. Canadians are now debating to what extent to allow private facilities to grow up alongside the public system. Keep in minbd that there are 10 provincial systems which differ quite a bit, so the choices made differ from province to province.

Much of the argument revolves around the propriety of a 2-tier system, where the better off will get quicker access to care. I must admit, I'm not fixated on the idea that everyone must be totally equal. Most of us accept that the rich will live in larger, more lavish houses and eat more elegant food. The question is do the poor live in modest, but comfortable houses and eat decent food or do they live in dangerous shacks or on the street and starve? I would be perfectly happy with a health care system that ensured access to basic health care for everyone and allowed those who wanted and could afford it to buy extra services or quicker access.

Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 8, 2009 7:32 PM

JusticeLeague:

Well of course they don't publicize the price for a cardiac catheterization. If they did, everybody would want one!

When I got my first bumscope several years back, the doc who was going to perform the procedure said that he noticed I had a "complaint" of heartburn. I told him, "Yeah, like 25 years or so.". He said since the already had me on the table they could just do both 'scopes in one go. I'm fairly certain that the insurance company would have preferred he not do that without prior notice, but I'm also sure he picked up a few hundred (or more) dollars for the extra 10 minutes.

Posted by: democommie | November 8, 2009 7:58 PM

"Well of course they don't publicize the price for a cardiac catheterization. If they did, everybody would want one"

I'd recommend waiting until after Christmas. I hear Dr Smith will be offering 50% off.

Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 8, 2009 8:23 PM

Keanus:

I have been extremely obtuse in not recognizing the overarching principle of folks like mroberts that are opposed to teh GAY and womens' control of their own bodies. I just thought it was because they were ignorant, superstitious shitheads. Now, thanks in part to your post I see what they really are--fucking bullies and cowards.

People like mroberts, the other asshat trolls who come here from time to time and the legislators, religious leaders and reichwing talkingshitheads that they get their marching orders from are all afraid of US! They are scared shitless that we're going to make them admit to their own guilty delight in sex and drugs and rock'n'roll. But, since they are afraid of us and yet still want to lash out--they go after the ladies. They can't force us to heel, so they go after women. They're nothin but religiopathic wifebeaters.

Posted by: democommie | November 8, 2009 10:50 PM

I might have a shred of respect for the forced-birth cult if they were willing to take on some of the risk they want to subject women to. Like maybe if the instant any women died or suffered any permanent harm due to being prevented from having an abortion, every single anti-abortion zealot would publicly disembowel themselves. But they won't, they don't give a flying fuck who they hurt, who they kill, as long as they get to force the rules of their cult on other people.

How about it, mroberts? Willing to put your own life on the line, or are you just an honorless coward?

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 9, 2009 9:40 AM

mroberts:

As with any government program, it results in low quality, long waits, and rationing.

I've spent considerable time in both the Canadian and US systems, and five of my relatives are health-care workers (doctors, nurses, pharmacists) in Canada. The Canadian system is not perfect, nor may it be the best model for the US, but the standard of care is excellent - better, in fact, than I've experienced in the US.

Furthermore, everyone has access to it, regardless of whether you're unemployed, poor, bankrupt, and so on. And the process involved is simple - you present a card, get seen, and you're done.

Perhaps you'd care to discuss the estimated 45,000 people who die each year in the US due to lack of insurance? This seems strangely discordant with your views on abortion - "protect the fetus at all costs, but the poor should die in silence?".

Posted by: mikev6 | November 9, 2009 10:57 AM

How about it, mroberts? Willing to put your own life on the line, or are you just an honorless coward?

I highly doubt that this guy even donates blood. He's "pro-life" which means that he stops caring about people the second they are born. I'm having this same discussion in a thread on a feminist blog, and essentially some dood came up with the excuse that childbirth and breastfeeding are natural and therefore mandatory (I still don't know how me made that leap though), yet kidney and blood donation are artificial and therefore not mandatory for some reason. What it translates to is that childbirth is something that only women have to deal with, but saving lives by donating blood could also mr. roberts and the other dood, and they can't be inconvenienced with actually helping people. It always amazes me that pro-life people do so many things that make it seem like they actually hate life. In reality, they're just lazy, selfish hypocrites who like to judge others more than they like to help others.

Posted by: catgirl | November 9, 2009 11:03 AM

catgirl @ #67:

It always amazes me that pro-life people do so many things that make it seem like they actually hate life. In reality, they're just lazy, selfish hypocrites who like to judge others more than they like to help others.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the forced-birth cult despises all living things. They celebrate terrorism and murder in the name of "life". They're clearly evil and batshit crazy.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 9, 2009 11:14 AM

would consider the killing of a just-delivered-after-full-term infant to be morally indistinguishable from killing the same child, five minutes earlier.

I guess you don't consider breathing, eating, and pooping to distinctions then. There's one more even bigger distinction: a just-delivered infant is no longer inside a person's body, threatening their life and health.

In reality though, late term abortions are extremely rare. You must have a dim view of women if you think they are so frivolous that they will wake up one day 8 months pregnant and decide "hmm, I better get that taken care of today". Late-term abortions are done only for the life or health of the woman, or the health of the fetus. Even if it were legal for women to have elective late-term abortions, women wouldn't choose to wait to long unless there were some very unusual circumstances.

Posted by: catgirl | November 9, 2009 11:27 AM

heddle-Just to be clear, I believe in the unrestricted right to abortion up to viability (currently around 24 weeks)butwould accept some restrictions after that point. I beleive that is more or less the majority viewpoint.

My issue with the health care bill is the following. It is said that those who object to abortion on moral grounds shouldn't have to pay taxes to provide something they oppose. But I opposed the war in Iraq (and torture of detainees) on moral grounds, so aren't I entitled to the same deference. Some object to the killing of animals on moral grounds, so perhaps federal meat inspection, which facilitates the killing of animals, should be eliminated. Why is one person's moral objection more worthy than another's?

Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 9, 2009 12:09 PM

controll @ 74 said:

So, do you oppose the NRA lobbying about firearms legislation, or the sierra club lobbying about environmental legislation? Why should the American bishops of the Catholic church refrain from lobbying about issues they value? Are they not citizens too?

I think you're conflating several issues, though I'd value your response. For starters, there's no amendment laying out a separation of NRA and state. To try and equate religion with gun ownership or environmentalism is a bit of a stretch in my view.

Secondly, what was described isn't run-of-the-mill lobbying. With regular lobbying, there at least has to be the appearance that lobbyists are 1) giving advice or suggestions based on concrete aspects of pending legislation, and 2) more importantly, that they don't have any sort of "hold" over the legislator. If someone said, "I cannot support this bill until I have permission from my lobbyist," I can only hope people would find that an appalling statement about a shift of authority from an elected official to a private one.

Similarly, if someone is involved in organized religion, then he or she presumes church authority figures have a certain level of authority on the truth about the universe, especially with regards to his or her soul. Therefore, advice from a church authority figure will never be divorced from the idea that "this person knows what's best for my immortal soul," and therefore will taint any advice from that person, because not heeding that advice might be putting your soul in jeopardy. (That is, if I don't agree with him on this matter, but he's right, then there's the chance that somewhere down the road I'd disagree with him, he'd be right, and there would go my chance to get into happy joy joy afterlife.)

Sure, people disagree with their pastors (or whoever) all the time. But for a Congressman come right out and say "My decisions are based on the mandates of my local church official" is exactly the situation church and state were separated to avoid in the first place. Advice, sure. Debate, why not. Orders? No.

Posted by: Kris | November 9, 2009 6:30 PM

dogmeatib,

but we don't have the right to tell them what they can and cannot do with their body.

I submit that doesn't apply to the limited argument I made here, in this thread, which related only to abortion at nine months minus five minutes. At that point, it doesn't matter that I don't have a womb. At some earlier point it may very well matter, but not then. At that point I believe I do have the right and the moral obligation at claim: you can't kill that child merely because it still has five minutes left inside of you. I don't agree that the argument that absolute bodily sovereignty extends until the moment the child is free. At nine months minus five minutes the child is unquestionably a living pain-feeling person with its own rights, and its right to life trumps five more minutes of pain and inconvenience for the woman.

Posted by: heddle | November 9, 2009 7:08 PM

At nine months minus five minutes the child is unquestionably a living pain-feeling person with its own rights, and its right to life trumps five more minutes of pain and inconvenience for the woman.

But, as we both know, this was an unrealistic extreme position intended to make a point. Problem is, everyone involved in the discussion, knows that this is a situation that hasn't happened outside the insane rants of extremist right to life organizations fraudulent claims. Unless you have some evidence that this has actually happened?

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 9, 2009 8:54 PM

heddle:

I'm only arguing the extreme case to make the point that Katharine's advocacy of abortion at-any-time is immoral.

But it isn't necessarily immoral. If women had late-term abortions for fun, you might have a point. But they really don't.

I don't want to speak for Katharine, but my guess is that she (like me) supports unhindered access to late term abortions so that women are not compelled via the government to sacrifice their lives and or health for their unborn children. There are arguments to be made for restrictions at late stages, but you are not making them so far as I can tell.

If you want to die for your child, go right ahead. You can make that decision the next time you're pregnant and having serious complications. Until that happens, kindly do not pretend that people who do not wish to use the government force other people to harm themselves for the sake of another are immoral.

Posted by: Leni | November 10, 2009 2:01 AM

@mroberts
"Government should get out of the health care business. Let insurance companies design their own policies based on what their customers are demanding. Additionally, allow people to shop for policies in any state. The free market is more than capable of providing a reasonably priced product for every niche need in the market."

The only reason the US government is involved in health insurance is to cover the huge gaps where the private sector has trimmed the edges of coverage for maximum profit. Think about terms like "pre-existing conditions," and "treatments not covered under this policy."

As a result, the US government, effectively, spends a staggering amount of cash to bail out the "free market" and stave off debate about whether there should be any level of social responsibility on the part of itself or the insurance industry to cover those who cannot afford coverage.

So the US system costs more, covers fewer, and results in greater birth mortality and shorter life expectancy while taking billions in lost productivity plus the aformentioned 16%.

Sounds like a real victory for the private sector there. And I don't mean that ironically.

I mean, look at your own argument: "Government can't do anything right." Like build roads, mandate food, drug, and product safety, organize a fire department, collect taxes ...

If you want low quality and rationing, stick with the system you've got. Nowhere in Canada, with the exception of certain experimental treatments, will you hear the phrase "your plan doesn't cover that."

But moreover, you make my argument for me:
"If government didn't require insurance companies to include all kinds of crazy coverages in even their most basic policies, costs would drop significantly."

So you favour rationing?

"I go to the doctor about once every four years if I happen to need an antibiotic because I'm sick, so why do I need all those extra mandated coverages?"

And you're willing to reduce and limit your own coverage to save money? What if you could have better coverage and still pay less? Because that's what's going on in almost every civilized nation on the globe, be it in a public or part-private system.

"It costs me an arm and a leg to carry the policy I have at work when all I need is catastrophic coverage."

So you're never planning on developing a chronic condition? You don't plan to get older? You'll die before you visit your GP for arthritis, asthma, or incipient diabetes?

"Do I really need to pay hundreds of dollars per month so I can go to the doc once every four years? It's stupid."

Well that's the point isn't it? As I understand it, your current system gives you the freedom not to pay anything at all. Or pay only for the care you need at the time.

Seriously, don't fear the idea of single-payer. It'll be cheaper, you'll be less stressed, and your country will be more productive and perhaps a bit happier for it.

For all its flaws--and for the record I've never heard of anyone with a genuinely life-threatening condition being turned away for lack of coverage (little joke there) or left on a wait list--Single-payer covers the most people, more often, and with mostly superior results. It seems like a no-brainer to me. Though I understand you have a different health care tradition.

Seriously. Private health care from where I sit looks like a dystopian nightmare. It promotes private profit as the main motive to provide a public service--health care, fosters a bizarre sort of economically-Darwinian mindset, has holes you could toss a dog through, and covers only a subset of the population.

You and your fellow taxpayers are shelling out a lot for patchy coverage at best. Don't fear reform, embrace it with your wallet.

Posted by: Metro | November 10, 2009 2:16 PM

If you want to die for your child, go right ahead. You can make that decision the next time you're pregnant and having serious complications.

Posted by: Health Care | November 11, 2009 7:50 AM

Here, I'm going to paste something from a more recent post. Heddle and your fellow anti-choicers, take heed.

"We are talking about a woman's right to have an abortion if she feels it necessary or desireable, nothing more, and every time we use this sort of euphemism, all we do is confirm the little old church ladies (of either sex and any age) in their belief that 'all we are doing is seeking to save "bad girls" from facing the consequences of their sexuality, carelessness and irresponsibility.

We have to start reminding people that there is nothing wrong -- and quite possibly something praiseworthy -- in women making the following statements:

"I already have three children, and it isn't fair to them to add another member of the family."

"I have just raised two children and sent them off to college. I'm glad I did, but I'm not going to spend the next twenty years doing the same thing unless I choose to do so, not because of a mistake, accident or miscalculation."

"I know I am not mature enough, chronologically or emotionally, to raise a child yet, and it isn't fair, to the child or to me, to force me to do so."

"I don't have the resources to raise this child on my own, but his father might have been fun to date, but he'd be an awful husband and father, and I'm not going to saddle myself of my child with him for the foreseeable future."

"My child will be extremely handicapped. I may admire those parents who can devote the time, money, resources, and strength to raise such a child, but that's not me. I just don't have it in me."

"I had an awful set of parents, and I'm still working my way through what they did to me. But that's the only parenting style I've experienced, and until I'm through dealing with it in myelf, I'm not going to take the chance of doing to a child what they did to me."

"Ive spent the last ten years -- and most of my money --working towards entering this profession, one in which I can do good for people. I've got my chance, and I don't have the resources left to raise a child while I am taking it."

"Danny and I decided to have a child so he'd have a new son or daughter waiting for him when he came back from Iraq, but I just found out he's not coming back, just his body is"

Or just "I'm young, healthy, and have had a hard life so far. I'll choose when I want to become part of a family, but right now, I want to take advantage of my youth and chance to enjoy myself."

These are the sort of arguments we should be making. And -- though this is a hard one to put across to people who assume any mother's love for her child -- once she has one -- is automatic, complete and unconditional -- it is true that many women, after a forced pregnancy have at least an unconscious resentment towards the child that comes out in the way she treats him -- or towards the man she feels a need to marry just so the child will have two parents.

I remember, around the time of Roe that ther were a lot of women testifying, in public, at hearings, in magazine articles, that they had had abortions (even when they were illegal), why they'd done it, and why they were glad they had.

We don't see much of that these days, and I don't think it's because everyone who had one regrets it. It's just that people have become so browbeaten by the religious forced pregnancy crowd that they have retreated behind euphemisms and no longer are willing to deal with what it is they are actually talking about."

Posted by: Katharine | November 11, 2009 3:08 PM