home

Late Night: You Can't Always Get What You Want

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:51:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

But if you try sometime....

Lots of unhappy folks out there tonight, and lots of politicians thumping their own chests. The reality, as usual, probably lies somewhere in the middle.

After 6 hours of watching C-Span, I'm signing off for the evening. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Dems Pass Health Care Bill, 220 to 215 | Sunday Football Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Night: You Can't Always Get What You Want | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Let me ask this (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by SOS on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:02:25 AM EST
    How is it possible, that during the worst economic crisis in U.S. History, one of the nation's most despised industries succeeded in getting the House to pass a bill that forces nearly every American citizen to purchase its shoddy and crooked products on pain of penalty of law?
    Didn't the insurance industry oppose this bill? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Manuel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:26:49 AM EST
    Perhaps that was an act and they wanted to be thrown in the briar patch.

    Parent
    When the bill had meat on it; now mostly gone n/t (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ellie on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:37:38 AM EST


    Parent
    Sorry, but the song is not apt (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    -- much as I love the song, but I know the next line.  And we are not even getting what we need.

    you may not be (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:26:31 AM EST
    but many others are, particularly those with pre-existing conditions and those without any health insurance. For them, this bill is a step in the right direction and an improvement over the current system.

    Parent
    We will see, as after what we saw today (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:37:29 AM EST
    I don't know why there would be reason for any confidence in what will be in a bill in the end.

    Some here belittle us as upset by "drama" today, but they are foolish to not realize how invigorating this debate was to the opposition.  This was only the beginning, I am betting. . . .

    And as it happens, I have to help to pay for the health insurance of someone laid off and left without it -- but with a pre-existing condition.  And because this is someone with a vagina, I am betting that it now will cost even more.

    So I don't think that she got what she needed today, no.  Frankly, she hasn't gotten much of anything out of this administration except a screwed-up economy that lost her a job -- and then lied about financial aid for going back to school.  And she is not alone; that has happened to so many students this fall that it is appalling.

    I think that they will not be voting "cool" next time.  They will be voting angry -- and at least that will give them something that they need.

    Parent

    It doesn't address the worst abuses (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by SOS on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:19:08 AM EST
    of the Medical Industrial Pharmaceutical Insurance Complex.

    If it does show me where.

    Parent

    It's going to be interesting (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by SOS on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:17:51 AM EST
    to see how people come up with that "Spare" $5000.00 to $15,000 dollars isn't it?

    Heck in fact I think I'm going out back to pick some cash off my trees right now.

    Parent

    If you're growing weed.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:38:23 AM EST
    I'd keep that on the DL bro...thats the only money tree I know of:)

    Parent
    I am absolutely not voting for Pres. Obama (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:19:54 AM EST
    again, nor anyone who voted for this bill.

    Statement on behalf of Pres. Obama

    did you vote for him last time? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:27:51 AM EST
    Or are you just looking for something on which to base your continued opposition to him?

    Parent
    Looking? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:29:01 AM EST
    No need to exert effort to look for reasons to be disappointed or disgusted by this administration. They hand them to us on a daily basis.

    The argument that he is better than Bush - or whatever a McCain administration with a democratic congress would have been - can only go so far. But I respect your right to make it.

    Parent

    On the other hand... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:55:36 AM EST
    I expend some effort and emotional energy looking for reasons to be encouraged by this administration. I just lived through eight years of a national nightmare and am actually eager to find evidence that it is over.

    Parent
    Aloha, Donald. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:29:30 AM EST


    Parent
    I think the fact that oculus said she (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:53:00 PM EST
    would never vote for Obama again means she did vote for him the first time; I'm surprised you missed that, Jeralyn.

    Unlike oculus, I did not vote for Obama, but I didn't vote for McCain, either; I knew I was not going to vote for the GOP candidate, but after much consideration, decided Obama was just not worthy of my vote.

    What distresses me no end is that there are so many areas in which I have been disappointed by Obama and the conduct of his administration that I am hard-pressed to say that I feel all that different than I did when Bush was president; I feared I was going to be let down by Obama, but I honestly never hoped to be proven right, nor did I completely expect that it would be this bad.

    The disappointment does not just attach to Obama; the conduct of the Congress had been less-than-satisfactory, and I don't see it improving.

    Contrary to what your comment to oculus implies, most of us who are Democrats would really like him to succeed at advancing the issues we care about, but unfortunately, he's taken a much more right-leaning approach, and it seems doubtful he will be the ally the traditional, liberal Democrats wanted or needed.

    That's going to have electoral consequences, I'm afraid - a base whose morale continues to decline is likely to be less-than enthused in 2010, and will stay home in droves.

    Parent

    I did vote for him last time, primarily (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:55:39 AM EST
    because of DFARv.W.  

    Parent
    What is DFARv.W? (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:42:32 AM EST


    Parent
    "Don't forget about Roe v. Wade." (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:00:39 AM EST


    Parent
    Try DFAH (none / 0) (#75)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    Don't forget about Hamdan (or, if you prefer Don't forget about Habeus C.).

    Dark days, these.

    Parent

    Ah, thank you. Needed a laff. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:20:22 AM EST
    And allow me to say that, disappointed as I am in Obama, I do not expect even Teh One in Politics to be able to do a thing about Teh One in Football.

    But wouldn't that be a fascinating Clash of Egos to watch?!

    Parent

    I did not vote for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Spamlet on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:06:26 AM EST
    or for McCain. And this was after working for John Kerry and voting for him and spending the next four years saying that I would vote for ANY Democrat for president in 2008.

    Maybe I missed it, but did Donna Brazile announce that women, too, are no longer needed in the Democratic Party? I wonder, because the Democrats have deliberately, cynically alienated many women who used to be loyal party members and have now deserted the party.

    Barack Obama may be the most charismatic Wall Street puppet most Americans have ever seen, though I must say that his vaunted awesomeness has never impressed me, at least not in a favorable way. His failures of leadership on health care reform have only cemented my opinion of him.

    Parent

    I just have to shake my head at the comments (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Maise7 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:16:02 AM EST
    You want a perfect bill. That's not reality. Ain't gonna happen.

    ::sigh::

    You don't want a fair bill (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:17:50 AM EST
    but want a bill that lets some people pay less, based on their body parts?  Why?  Explain why that is even a good bill, please.

    Parent
    I've read the comments (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by zaladonis on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:35:54 AM EST
    and I think claiming they want a perfect bill rudely dismisses legitimate criticism.

    Maybe this bill is better than no bill but it's coming at a high price, and anger from those who are rightly concerned about women's access to full reproductive services shouldn't be dismissed.

    Principled concerns of lot of the Democratic base have been dismissed, and groups tossed under the bus, this past year and it's disheartening to see it continue.

    Parent

    Does Planned Parenthood receive any (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:29:48 AM EST
    funding from the U.S. government?

    Not that I know of (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    but this does...

    http://www.hrsa.gov/

    Federally-funded health centers care for you, even if you have no health insurance. You pay what you can afford, based on your income. Health centers provide

       1. checkups when you're well
       2. treatment when you're sick
       3. complete care when you're pregnant
       4. immunizations and checkups for your children
       5. dental care and prescription drugs for your family
       6. mental health and substance abuse care if you need it

    http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/



    Parent
    Sausage (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Manuel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:38:00 AM EST
    It sure isn't pretty watching legislation get made.  This bill is far from the single payer system I want but, warts and all, it is an improvement on what we have now.  As we press the fight for the issues we care about, let's try to avoid the circular firing squads.  Take the long view.  We have a long way to go.  There will be other battles.  Forgive but don't forget.

    Improvement for whom? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:37:41 AM EST
    Improvement for the people who have penises? Sure. However, they just gave every woman of reproductive age the finger. They all will be required to pay more for their reproductive health care.

    Parent
    If Obama signs this (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 05:32:15 AM EST
    he seals his fate for me. I will not only not votre for him I will actively campaign AGAINST him. I really don't care if this incementally improves things for some(I have a male teen who will be allowed coverage for longer and in another couple years I will have a female teen who will be FORCED to have supplemental insurance to have control over her reproductive rights. I won't choose between the two as to which should have precedence.) It incrementally makes things worse for another demographic and I will not stand idly by and call that alright. Last cycle I voted but I didn't go out and canvass. This cycle I will canvas. I'll take my beautiful children with me and I'll talk about how I almost died following my fifth pregnancy. I'll then move on to the women who do die everyday as the result of lack of access to reproductive health. I will hang the term of coathanger Dem around his neck.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:24:00 AM EST
    I really don't care what juvenile names get tossed at me but thanks for playing.

    Parent
    Don- (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:15:02 AM EST
    This is not an appropriate response.
    This is HuffPo stuff.
    Counter an argument with an argument.

    Parent
    His argument is (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:48:53 AM EST
    better to vote for a Democrat that stands for little to nothing than to vote for the opposition party. It's people like him that got us to DINO status. Nothing is sacred. Not a woman's right to choose, not equality for gay couples, not a foreign policy that looks different from the previous admin, not the big giveaways advanced on the backs of the working class.....nada. All that matters is the person has that D after their name.

    I'm not afraid of his name calling. If na-na-na-na your a Republican is the best he's got I'll look forward to 2010 and 2012 and seeing which of us is more persuasive.

    Parent

    I guess you've missed the point that (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    it never had to be one or the other - there was never any reason why coverage of pre-existing conditions had to be "paid for" by banning women from being guaranteed coverage for abortions in the exchange on a private-pay basis AND allowing insurance companies to refuse to cover birth control and other gynecological wellness-related services.  Not when they are going to be required to cover Christian Science healing sessions.

    And Donald, as sympathetic as anyone would be to the particulars of your situation, the comment about the 25 cats was totally unnecessary; it was just another mean-spirited and nasty comment that added nothing to the discussion.

    I find it unbelievably ironic that you declare that you are not an expendable commodity to be bartered away, but you apparently are fine with bartering away the needs of women if it means your own needs can be met.

    Parent

    Donald is jealous and projecting (none / 0) (#82)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    I have 4 beautiful children and a husband. I have little to no worries that in 25 years time my principled self will still be surrounded by people who I love and who love me.

    I struck a nerve. Good.

    Parent

    25 cats . . . (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:58:07 PM EST
    says it all.

    Parent
    meh (none / 0) (#84)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:10:31 PM EST
    as I said the name calling and juvenile behavior doesn't bother me. I have 4 children and I am all sorts of familiar with childish behavior. If he wants to show his backside to the world far be it for me to stand in his way. He shouldn't be surprised though when someone decides to put their foot up said backside.

    Parent
    and in 20 years (none / 0) (#81)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:31:25 PM EST
    you and the corporate frat boys can fry in Hades because you never managed to acquire the one thing money can't buy- principle

    Oh and right back atcha Screw you and your  coathangar cohorts that don't stand or care for a single thing accept for what you can cram in your pockets.

    Parent

    They can have it. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:23:59 AM EST
    This "coat-hanger" amendment feels the same to me as if they had passed a healthcare bill in the 1950s that allowed states to permit hospitals to refuse treatment to Black people or Jews.

    Well, alright.. listen... no so bad.. (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:47:25 AM EST
    It seems that we are the only ones - the ones on the progressive side - that can't get what we want.

    The people on the other side - during the Bush years and even the Reagan years - got absolutely everything they wanted.

    They wanted preemptive war - they got it.
    They wanted to tap our phones without warrants - they got it.
    They wanted a Patriot Act - they got it.

    We wanted our troops out of Iraq. Nothing.
    We want out of Afghanistan. Nothing.
    We want an end to "rendition" and detention without trial. Nothing.
    We want an end to the Patriot Act. They renewed it.

    So why is that we are the ones being told to sigh and smile faintly and accept our status as second or third class citizens?

    The other side isn't being told by their leaders to compromise.

    The Bill (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Pat Johnson on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:33:54 AM EST
    We just witnessed the last barrier to the separation of church and state when the Catholic Church is cited for their input and support surrounding the issue of reproductive rights. That right there is reason enough to protest this insertion if nothing else.

    Those who wish to declare the "beauty" of this travesty overlook that feature.  We are heading toward a theocracy and few seem to understand the full extent of that egregiousness.  

    Gotta love Kucinich (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    Kucinich: Why I Voted NO

    Congressman Kucinich 111th

    Washington, Nov 7 -

    After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:

    "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.  We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are.  But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit.  That is our system.



    Much more....

    Why would a woman? (none / 0) (#23)
    by itscookin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:11:22 AM EST


    Messy democracy indeed (none / 0) (#27)
    by dutchfox on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:33:03 AM EST
    My fear is that some sort of Stupak-like amendment will attached to the Senate bill. Thoughts?

    I'm betting it will be there too. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    I have no faith in the Senate whatsoever.

    Parent
    I have two female Democratic Senators (none / 0) (#55)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    Both are getting constant communications from me.

    One will vote YEA if O asks her to, or if she thinks the state wants her to be a good D; the other will vote for what is right, and probably vote NAY.

    Parent

    At the risk of being (none / 0) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:59:10 AM EST
    attacked, there may be reason to step back and not feel quite so minimized as females where this bill is concerned. I've never hidden my personal disdain for health insurance providers, so this is not in their defense. It's for us to take a look at why some elements of our "medical" are not priority coverage. NOTE: This is just my logic, and I am not claiming to know anything as fact.

    Birth control. The ability to conceive and have children is not a medical malfunction. Blocking our ability to conceive on a temporary basis is available OTC in the form of condoms, (foam and sponges, too?) or by practicing the "rhythm system". Insurance, as a result, sees the other (prescription) forms of control as choice.

    I do believe that, while the devices and pills are not covered, the medical procedures to implant, insert, inject, or prescribe, actually are covered.

    We should push to get the pill available as OTC. I also believe that PERK accounts (pre-tax dollars put into savings accounts only for the purchase of medical, including OTC, products not otherwise covered by insurance) need to be made universally available.

    The female body is not actually designed to conceive every single month. Duggars excepted, without the use of any birth control method, few women would take more than a few babies to term in her lifetime.

    The pill was new on the market when I was in my early 20's. I was never going to experiment with it because I wanted children in my life and there wasn't enough known about the pill. Never having used any control, I had 2 children.

    How is the bill on infertility?

    Viagra. I've argued the same thing...they'll cover the blue pill but not the birth control pill for years. But, the reality is that the D in ED is dysfunction and there is no natural remedy.

    Pelvic Exams. If pap smears are covered, the pelvic exam will have taken place, and not be itemized on a bill. Who goes to the doctor just for a pelvic exam? It's usually a routine check because you're on the table. I'm at a loss for how that claim got highlighted.

    As long as abortions remain legal, I would like to see the male responsible for submitting at least half the cost to his insurance company. And, certainly be named responsible for the bill if insurance does not cover it. Same with OB. Why should the female carry the entire financial burden through her insurance carrier? There is a reason why many states have a first birthday during the calendar year rule for dependents. Pregnancy is a shared condition IMHO.

    I don't know what that $2500-5000 deductible requirement before pregnancy will be paid is all about. All insurances have deductibles, and they all require the deductible be paid before anything is covered, so I'm lost on where the argument for that stems from. But, I will say, having children is expensive, so if they can't afford their insurance deductible, they are going to have a really hard time supporting a child.

    If the Piety Brigade used logic or common sense .. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ellie on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    ... they wouldn't also aggressively prevent the kind of education, counselling and access to health care providers that insurance carriers are hoping to flat out deny.

    The kind of finely tuned expertise necessary to use calendrical methods like the "rhythm" method is beyond the amateur. (It's 15-30% ineffective if you want to play those odds.) Even using it  oppositely -- to procreate -- prediction eludes even experienced doctors with all their training and equipment.

    Abstinence "education" -- virtually 100% ineffective -- on a set of the population that's about to go from childhood to being whacked out on hormones cruelly exposes young people to a myriad of ailments not immediately expressed in sex and baby-making.

    The plumbing's in place even if you're not using the sink, so one thing you can bet on with certainty is that it likely will influence wider health problems at any age.

    I'm p!ssed that so much was given away by this most "progressive" version, I shudder to think at what's in store from the more craven cowards at Comity Central.

    Parent

    Didn't these lawmakers (none / 0) (#36)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:40:49 AM EST
    use the private insurance companies as their primary consultants? It would be very interesting to see the coverage policies from a really big private insurer to compare it to this bill.

    After watching a large chunk of yesterday's arguments, I was embarrassed for so many districts who voted in some of these woefully inadequate representatives.

    BTW - I was not saying the non-prescription forms of birth control worked well, I was saying private insurance takes advantage of the OTC availability to deny coverage of the other methods.

    If this congress can't pass a good HCR bill, perhaps they should work at regulating insurance and big pharma with really tight rules. That might encourage those industries to rethink some of this. The first thing they need to do is get rid of the investors in those industries.  

    Parent

    No, my bad for not highlighting that ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ellie on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    ... just getting the right counselling to make the choices requires coverage the cheap and nasty are hoping to obliterate by painting a large red flashing A(bortion) on it.

    I haven't done all my homework on comparing the various versions, cross-ref'ing them to what I have now, and might have should I relocate.

    What I do know is that the most "progressive" voices were made to cave to an @sshat like Stupak, being incrementally scr3wed out of my rights for most of my voting life will be nothing compared to what's ahead.

    Parent

    I have been comparing plans (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    One thing the bill should help is not charging a higher premium based on gender, but that isn't the whole problem. There's the across the board higher premium we pay and then there is also the higher costs when looking at the choices and trying to get your basic needs covered. You may have to pay for a more expensive plan to get those needs (involves uterus) met. I don't know if that wiggle room has been taken care of.

    I was trying to read through the briefs, but I don't think they are as clear as they should be . . . {Gasp!}

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:52:17 AM EST
    Yeah instead you'll have to buy supplemental coverage to get your pap smears and birth control and get coverage if you wish to terminate a pregnancy but that flat rate "regular" coverage will cost the same. Swell.

    Parent
    I thought pap smears (none / 0) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:00:24 AM EST
    were covered.

    Parent
    On the birth control pills (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:08:23 AM EST
    they aren't always prescribed for birth control, so saying they are a contraceptive choice puts a woman in the position of having to deal with getting her insurance to pay for it or pay for it out of pocket. Also, why should we let the gov/insurance companies limit our choices on how we want to handle our body when it comes to reproduction or not?

    Parent
    Very true on the variety of uses (none / 0) (#43)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    for birth control pills. Wasn't suggesting otherwise...just finding the reasoning private insurance was using to refuse to cover as a contraceptive. You can contact your insurance provider to get waivers on medications when using them for a medical condition, though.

    My goal was to lessen the pain women are feeling over some of the elements in this bill. The legislators clearly used private insurers as their advisors all the way on this.


    Parent

    That seems a little like a man (4.40 / 5) (#66)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:34:40 PM EST
    thinking a nice bouquet of roses will make up for cheating on his wife/girlfriend.

    I don't mean to cast aspersions on your intention, but I don't want to forget about, or count my blessings, or look on the bright side, or tell myself that at least it's better than a sharp stick in my eye.  Why should I keep trying to acclimate to an ever-more repressive and regressive policy towards women?

    Dems have been telling us since 2006 that we should essentially just shut up and accept their lame excuses for why they can't do more with their majority, and I won't be made to feel bad because I won't get on board with that - not that you were doing that, but I've read some comments in this thread - yes, I'm looking at you, Donald - that just disgust me for their taunting and vindictive tone.

    Parent

    Yes (4.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Spamlet on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:55:26 PM EST
    Some commenters here are painting women's reaction to this bill as petulance, and they cannot understand why women are angry. I wonder why these commenters apparently are not. It seems a camel's nose is worth more than lady parts.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jbindc on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 06:17:41 PM EST
    Some commenters here are painting women's reaction to this bill as petulance, and they cannot understand why women are angry.

    Maybe Congress will just pat our heads with a soothing "There, there" and whisper amongst themselves that we're only unhappy because it's "that time of the month" too.

    Parent

    Why don't you make those pointed (none / 0) (#70)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    accusations to those who are doing so. At no time have I suggested women should just take it.

    I, too, am an outraged woman over this disgusting bill.

    Parent

    I was not talking about you (none / 0) (#74)
    by Spamlet on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:31:47 PM EST
    I was, however, countering your dismissive "Good grief" to Anne, and I put it where both of you would see it.

    I now understand that you are a woman outraged over this digusting bill, but only because you told me.

    Your original comment struck me the same way it struck Anne. I described your original comment as the outcome of a "kind impulse" because I wanted to be diplomatic. But I thought it had been written by a well-meaning, clueless left-liberal man.

    Parent

    Probably a good idea to actually read (none / 0) (#86)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:57:59 AM EST
    a comment prior to responding to it. Men don't get pregnant.

    Anne is quite capable of twisting the meaning of someone's comment into something it didn't say, and when she does, she gets to be called out on it.

    Parent

    Good grief, Anne (none / 0) (#67)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    No one is saying anything at all that resembles your interpretation. It seems, that arguing this topic would get much more traction if it was done from understanding the basis for it over reacting from such an emotional position.

    That's their logic. So, argue from the ground they are standing on.

    Under no circumstances am I asking you, me or any other woman to just take it.

    Parent

    In two places, I made clear that I (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Anne on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:03:06 PM EST
    understood what you were attempting, and stated that I was not casting aspersions, but when you say this:

    My goal was to lessen the pain women are feeling over some of the elements in this bill.

    I honestly do not know how else I am supposed to take it but as an effort to minimize the anger.

    I'm glad you're angry, too - we should all be angry, and yet, from all corners, we are being treated as if our anger means we don't want everyone to have health care.

    Which is just a bunch of unadulterated BS, but still, we are being made to feel that any criticism is unjustified.  It'e beginning to feel a lot like the "with us or against us" campaign of the last administration.

    Is there such a thing as a perfect bill?  Probably not.  But how long do we have to keep fighting for equality against the forces that think the things that matter to us are expendable?  As I said to BTD last night, it is precisely because we have been fighting for equality in health care for so long that this seems like a particularly stinging defeat.

    And all I wanted to express is that I do no intend to be placated, nor do I intend to be intimidated, by those who want to frame my anger as getting in the way of the so-called greater good.

    Parent

    So -- no "thanks for the mammaries" (2.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:59:20 PM EST
    then?  Good, as I agree with Anne that I am not going to look for silver linings in the fact that Congress wants me to keep my breasts -- or wants medical professionals to cop a feel, I frankly do not want to guess what these guys are thinking.  But it does not want women to get coverage of basic pelvic exams and more that would keep so many from dying of other cancers.

    Parent
    No one is asking you to look for silver linings (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:11:54 PM EST
    I'm astonished.

    Parent
    Oh, for pity's sake (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    I am not attacking you.  I am disagreeing to an extent with your maximizing (okay, let's not call it silver linings; I'll go with your term of not "minimizing") of some sign of hope in this change.  

    Sure, there are some crumbs for women.  Fine.  I hope that makes you feel better.  And that the silly rating did so, too.

    Parent

    A kind impulse (none / 0) (#45)
    by Spamlet on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    Politically speaking, though, it would be better all around--for you as well--if women truly felt how painful, insultng, and outrageous this is. If women simply feel less pain, and nothing else changes, who benefits?

    My goal was to lessen the pain women are feeling over some of the elements in this bill. The legislators clearly used private insurers as their advisors all the way on this.


    Parent
    If there wasn't malicious intent (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:38:24 AM EST
    women are strong enough to attack this dreadful bill from a direction that stands a better chance of being listened to.


    Parent
    Was there malicious intent (none / 0) (#63)
    by itscookin on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    when a portion of the population only counted for 3/5 of a person? It feels a lot like not counting as a whole person if you're female. Only 80% of my body is counted in the health insurance reform bill. Women's health simply isn't important enough for our congresspeople to fight for. Malicious? Frankly, I don't think they care enough about women to expend the energy to be malicious or to listen to anything we say.

    Parent
    Stay on topic (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:44:42 AM EST
    if you want to pretend you are responding to what I said. No, I do not think it was malicious intent. I think it was not thinking at all because they were being told this is the norm in what people get from their insurance coverage...something that we can change by replacing these less that adequate representatives.


    Parent
    I am hoping to see (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    some resort for organized resistance from women to this bill, and I hope that you will let us know if you see it somewhere, too.

    I do look for your comments and almost always (until now, and it's just an exception) do learn from them, your links, etc.

    Parent

    I think you got that from me (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:48:14 AM EST
    I don't know what that $2500-5000 deductible requirement before pregnancy will be paid is all about.

    and it wasn't about pregnancy specifically. Nor is it part of the bill. It's what I am seeing now in some of the more/almost affordable plans when I was looking. Some of the plans will cover well visits/annual check ups etc with deductible waived, but not ob/gyn checks until after the deductible is met. All plans do not have deductibles, btw :) But there is a range of deductibles based on monthly premiums. Finding one that's affordable and covers a woman equally is the trick. I'm not sure there isn't wiggle room in the new bill. Reading the briefs from the link, I'm still not sure what total effect it will have.

    Parent

    Yes, what used to be "Major Medical" (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    policies has crept into the standard insurance coverage options. These huge deductibles are becoming commonplace to lower the premiums, and anyone who works for a larger employer generally has 3-4 choices for which policy they can afford for themselves (and their family)...PPO to HSP to HMO.

    But, the people who choose those high deductibles out of financial restrictions also can't afford daycare costs or quitting their jobs to care for the children they produce. If we demand free/affordable obstetrics, we need to work harder to make safe, affordable daycare available. I fear we don't have the b@lls in congress to do either.

    Parent

    Last time I worked for a large (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:55:41 AM EST
    (as in huge)employer, I don't recall having 3 or 4 choices. One of my friends still works for the same parent co, I'll have to ask her. My last (not so huge)employer offered 2 choices* with the same insurance co and one was just a tad cheaper, so most people went with the more expensive version to get the most for their money. The owner of that company tried his best to get decent coverage for everyone, but it was a yearly challenge as premiums went up and coverage shrank. Iirc, if we had any deductibles, they weren't anything that made your hair stand on end like the ones I'm seeing now as someone looking at individual policies.

    I did see, in one of the overviews, that employers would be required to pay 72% of their employee premiums. What do they pay now? For some reason I thought it was around half?

    * I'm not sure how much of a "choice" it is when you can only choose a plan through one provider.

    Parent

    Right now, I do think (none / 0) (#56)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:59:44 AM EST
    that it is significantly different from state to state.

    Parent
    It is. I have been comparing NY and CA (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:29:41 AM EST
    and see a dif in the individual markets.

    Parent
    The Votes (none / 0) (#31)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    For the HCR bill, the Stupak Amendment, Boehner Substitute Amendment, and Motion to Recommit.

    Based on all the outrage over this bill, I'm not sure if the D's who voted YEA were just being lazy. Send your specific concerns about the bill over women's health issues and ask why they would have voted for it when it appears so inadequate.

    I'm doubting it will get better when the Senate starts debating and changing it.

    Democratic Leaders (none / 0) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:07:21 AM EST
    Not surprizing, my rep, Lupinski, was one of the culprits. The problem is that he's guaranteed reelection. He has the support of the Democratic Party leadership and he's in a true blue district.

    Last year he did receive a primary challenge from a real progressive, but it amounted to nothing. As long as the powers at the top annointed him, he was able to sail to victory.

    The sad part of the whole issue is that the Democratic leadership could of had a real Democrat in this seat. They chose him.

    But for those that are upset and are going to vote for a Republican next time, where are they going to find a pro choice candidate in that group?

    Maybe the better choice is to push the current leadership out and get people in there that actually have read and believe in the Democratic Party platform.

    My intent (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    will be to keep voting them out until I get a candidate that listens. I'm not giving any of them a blank check.

    Parent
    That's the tactic that some don't get (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    -- letting faux Dems lose is what it takes to wake up the Dems to running real Dems.  It worked before.  It can work again.

    Parent
    Don't Loose Perspective! (none / 0) (#49)
    by bselznick on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:39:48 AM EST
    People, people, why so much anger?  In this land of the free, don't you remember what the Democratic party stands for?  It is the Lesser of Two Evils.  Don't loose perspective.  Of course we're going to continue to vote Democratic; that choice is at least a hair better than voting Republican.

    That's all we get, and that's something that is not going to CHANGE.  You can believe in that.

    You can't always get what you want, Oh ? (none / 0) (#65)
    by joze46 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:30:03 PM EST
    One could get lost in this strange interpretation, my bold intuition, so hold on, get a grip, a strong cup of coffee, and feel a time and a space in a dimensional move. It goes fast.

    Very appropriate the Rolling Stones, that mainstream of my time. Reflecting back at the 1969 single "Honky Tonk Women", "Brown Sugar" (Sticky Fingers, 1971), "Tumbling Dice"(capo IV), "Happy"(capo IV) (Exile on Main St., 1972), and "Start Me Up"  and more. "Smokin" yep... a very flip time for me it was good morning Vietnam, as GI Joe then, LBJ guns and butter time for me then. As a veteran that would lean on these songs it now seems appropriate America didn't get what it wanted via Vietnam. Or did it? One thing is for sure the smoke in Asia/ or Middle East is very powerful. It is said it will either cure you of being crazy, or curse you to be crazy...Now in Afghanistan, the rich intellectualist know the war cash cow is a lot of both Crazies. LOL.

    From my reflection the Rolling Stones are a development of the very rich intellectualist class of the time promoting "LSD" and other drugs. The Jekyll Island group. Now being marketed as natural medicine. Which it is. Or the other medicinal stuff like a slug of Crown Royal. It seems the right combination of Jim Beam, Cannabis, filtered in good decibel sound on sound waves at just the right tones or chord modulus of flowing Fourier/ Laplace smooth lattice to resonate a mental stream that wants to explore. Space and time does dilate transforming ones thought perhaps to a shocking cure or plain morbidity. Depends on your personal will.

    One of the earliest inventors of this new sound was not just the Rolling Stones or the Beatles much of the newness goes to a home grown Les Paul for the invention of the electric guitar. For me this man is far greater than any of the rock bands out. As Bullwinkle said the sprits are about to speak Just listen.  He is credited with many recording innovations, including overdubbing (also known as sound on sound), delay effects such as tape delay, phasing effects, twisting the vinyl turntable ?, and multitrack recording.

    One of my favorite is "how high is the moon" love the sound dubbing. Notice the guitar electrical connections are really neat. This guy is connected yikes the reverb. Cool.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ffdwBUL78&feature=related

    This is a professional appearance, same song, but tries to get into his playing an incredible man.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CNJ0txKXSo&feature=related

     At least we got some good music to colonize the moon...that maybe very well what  we want.

    Late Night: You Can't Always Get What You Want | 81 comments (81 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment