I had a friend visiting me this weekend who had fervently backed Barack Obama for President (against the “devil-woman” Hillary), but who now thinks Obama has betrayed his followers – most recently by agreeing to disastrous compromises in the health insurance bill. We argued the point on Sunday morning, while reading reports of the passage of the House bill.
I told my friend that some of the most important features of bill were overlooked because they were so obvious – for instance, the ban on insurance companies denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. My friend, who has insurance with his job, responded, “Does that really happen?” I told him that it does indeed -- that our youngest and perfectly healthy daughter, when she had gotten too old for our insurance policy, had been denied coverage by an insurer in San Francisco because she had taken an anti-depressant drug six months before.
And in discussing the House leadership’s concession on abortion, I pointed my friend, who compares Obama unfavorably to Franklin Roosevelt, to what actually happened to the Social Security Act of 1935. That act, when it passed, was a bare shell of what it became in the 1950s after amendment. Benefits were nugatory. And most important, coverage was denied to wide swaths of the workforce, including farm laborers.
Why farm laborers? Well, because Franklin Roosevelt and liberal Democrats needed the vote of racist Southern Democrats who wanted to deny benefits to blacks, most of whom were farm laborers. Yes, the anti-abortion provision in the House bill is very bad (subjecting the poor, but not the rest of us, to the strictures of conservative Catholics and Southern Baptists), but it will at some point (one hopes) be removed. In fact, the bill that the House passed last Saturday is considerably more robust that the original Social Security bill. But don’t tell my friend that.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (12)
I'm sure your friend is a lovely person - as Nancy Pelosi calls them "progressives who long to be sainted" (like me and my abolistionist approach to gay marriage). I'd have thought twice making the FDR comparison to you of all people, who will methodically, politiely shoot perfect holes in the whole conceit. FDR wrote the book on selling folks down the river to get from A to B.
It is painful to be pro-choice, no question. It may be moot anyway, how low will Joe go? I say all the way down.
I'm sure your friend is a lovely person - as Nancy Pelosi calls them "progressives who long to be sainted" (like me and my abolistionist approach to gay marriage). I'd have thought twice making the FDR comparison to you of all people, who will methodically, politiely shoot perfect holes in the whole conceit. FDR wrote the book on selling folks down the river to get from A to B.
It is painful to be pro-choice, no question. It may be moot anyway, how low will Joe go? I say all the way down.
Important questions that the public relies on journalists to answer:
1. What percentage of abortions performed annually are covered by the patient's health insurance?
2. What percentage of abortions covered by health insurance would be beyond the means of the woman in question to pay out-of-pocket?
3. Just how much does an abortion procedure cost these days, if one has to pay for it out of pocket?
All in all, the House bill looks like a huge substantive victory for progressive values, made possible by a minor symbolic reverse for progressive values. The good guys get a major real win, the bad guys get a minor empty win; seems like a no-brainer for liberals to support without reservation.
Important questions that the public relies on journalists to answer:
1. What percentage of abortions performed annually are covered by the patient's health insurance?
2. What percentage of abortions covered by health insurance would be beyond the means of the woman in question to pay out-of-pocket?
3. Just how much does an abortion procedure cost these days, if one has to pay for it out of pocket?
All in all, the House bill looks like a huge substantive victory for progressive values, made possible by a minor symbolic reverse for progressive values. The good guys get a major real win, the bad guys get a minor empty win; seems like a no-brainer for liberals to support without reservation.
Right John. Because there's no parallel to Southern racism like believing defensible human life begins at conception. Look, can you at least pretend you understand that pro-lifers believe abortion is a grave, grave evil, and that therefore "non-starter" doesn't begin to describe how we view our tax money being used for it?
Right John. Because there's no parallel to Southern racism like believing defensible human life begins at conception. Look, can you at least pretend you understand that pro-lifers believe abortion is a grave, grave evil, and that therefore "non-starter" doesn't begin to describe how we view our tax money being used for it?
Moreover, it would be interesting to see how the anti-abortion provisions of the bill would stand up to constitutional challenge. To the extent the public insurance plan will not offer coverage for abortion to people who will pay premiums out of their own pockets, that very well may place an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion, therefore rendering unconstitutional under current Supreme Court precedent.
Moreover, it would be interesting to see how the anti-abortion provisions of the bill would stand up to constitutional challenge. To the extent the public insurance plan will not offer coverage for abortion to people who will pay premiums out of their own pockets, that very well may place an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion, therefore rendering unconstitutional under current Supreme Court precedent.
Did anyone see an explanation of why the nutcase Kucinich voted no. Surely it was entertaining.
Did anyone see an explanation of why the nutcase Kucinich voted no. Surely it was entertaining.
I wish it were so that John Judis's friend works in a monastery where all news from the outside world is cut off, hence the persons obliviousness to people being cut off and driven to bankruptcy. I also don't doubt his friend is a pretty bright person. I can guess that his friend can also probably name all the starting players for the 1998 Yankees. Such is life. I went to University in Austria to study German not to far from the German town where my grandfather was born. Yet my mother told everyone I was in Australia. When I came back relatives asked me if I saw any kangaroos, after I told them I was in Austria, many still asked if I saw any kangaroos. I can only say that God that Bush did s ... view full comment
I wish it were so that John Judis's friend works in a monastery where all news from the outside world is cut off, hence the persons obliviousness to people being cut off and driven to bankruptcy. I also don't doubt his friend is a pretty bright person. I can guess that his friend can also probably name all the starting players for the 1998 Yankees. Such is life. I went to University in Austria to study German not to far from the German town where my grandfather was born. Yet my mother told everyone I was in Australia. When I came back relatives asked me if I saw any kangaroos, after I told them I was in Austria, many still asked if I saw any kangaroos. I can only say that God that Bush did such a horrible that Democrat have what they have. If Bush had done a slightly less job, health care reform would have been doomed.
rhub. those questions, I don't care. I don't agree that abortion rights is a "progressive" value either. I am against both the death penalty and abortion, but accept societies choice to have both. I don't accept calling abortion progressive anymore than I would accept calling the death penalty progressive. I don't see it as "bad guys" getting a minor empty win. It is a victory for people who want to see health care reform without having to violate basic tenets of their conscience. Calling them "bad" is just wrong. If you want the poor to have access to abortions, then might I suggest you donate heavily to planned parenthood. And beyond that, fight for quality sex education for the poor so they don't have to be in a position to have an abortion.
primwallflow, exactly.
primwallflow, exactly.
dhurtado, undue burden? since when does the right to have an abortion include the federal government funding of it? The bill hasn't even come close to passing and already you are raising constitutional challenges to it. It sounds like a great way to give an assist to the Republicans pressuring the blue dogs to vote no after the bill comes out of reconciliation. Like Republicans need anymore talking points.
dhurtado, undue burden? since when does the right to have an abortion include the federal government funding of it? The bill hasn't even come close to passing and already you are raising constitutional challenges to it. It sounds like a great way to give an assist to the Republicans pressuring the blue dogs to vote no after the bill comes out of reconciliation. Like Republicans need anymore talking points.
Your friend's reaction says more about the incompetence of theDemocratic leadership than it does about your friend. I can't for the life of me understand why the Democrats put so much focus on health care reform (i.e., universal coverage and the funding (i.e., the subsidies (i.e., welfare) and the tax increases to fund them) rather than health insurance reform (no cherry picking, denial or terminaiton of coverage for health conditions, and basing premiums on health condition or age in order to "force" the sick and nearly old out). I would have paraded witness after witness before the committees with sad stories about how insurers treat the sick, especially the chronically ill, how people w ... view full comment
Your friend's reaction says more about the incompetence of theDemocratic leadership than it does about your friend. I can't for the life of me understand why the Democrats put so much focus on health care reform (i.e., universal coverage and the funding (i.e., the subsidies (i.e., welfare) and the tax increases to fund them) rather than health insurance reform (no cherry picking, denial or terminaiton of coverage for health conditions, and basing premiums on health condition or age in order to "force" the sick and nearly old out). I would have paraded witness after witness before the committees with sad stories about how insurers treat the sick, especially the chronically ill, how people who play by the rules can lose everything because of illness. Instead, we get lots of discussion about universal care, subsidies (welfare) to bribe the young and healthy to buy health insurance, and "bending the curve". When it comes to political tone deafness, the Democratic leadership has no peer.
Blackton asks:
"since when does the right to have an abortion include the federal government funding of it?"
It doesn't Blackton. The Hyde Amendment has not been held unconstitutional. But my understanding is that the public plan will be funded by premiums paid out of the policyholders' pockets, not by public funds. To the extent that is true, then my question -- and it is just a question, not an advocacy position -- is whether a legislative provision that restricts access to abortion to those who otherwise qualify to purchase insurance from the public plan might be subject to a constitutional challenge.
Moreover, any such challenge would be only to the "no abortion" provision, not to the ... view full comment
Blackton asks:
"since when does the right to have an abortion include the federal government funding of it?"
It doesn't Blackton. The Hyde Amendment has not been held unconstitutional. But my understanding is that the public plan will be funded by premiums paid out of the policyholders' pockets, not by public funds. To the extent that is true, then my question -- and it is just a question, not an advocacy position -- is whether a legislative provision that restricts access to abortion to those who otherwise qualify to purchase insurance from the public plan might be subject to a constitutional challenge.
Moreover, any such challenge would be only to the "no abortion" provision, not to the entire bill. I cannot imagine it being a Republican talking point that the "no abortion" provision might be unconstitutional.
Finally, as to raising constitutional challenges before a bill is passed, it is the reponsibility of Congress to consider the constitutionality of any legislative provision it contemplates enacting.
raylward, they did that. I heard many of those sad stories. Anyway, it's not incompetent to prioritize the substantive policies Democrats favor. You're blasting Democrats for not agreeing to a Republican bill -- one that would not expand coverage. Expanding coverage is the main point from the Democrats' perspective. To characterize that goal as "welfare" is the genuine tone deafness, in my view. A lack of coverage, after all, provides plenty of sad stories too, which conservatives scoff at. Anyway, you couldn't do "health insurance reform" without "bribing the healthy." That's how you make it affordable to stop the health insurance practices you don't like without eliminating the ind ... view full comment
raylward, they did that. I heard many of those sad stories. Anyway, it's not incompetent to prioritize the substantive policies Democrats favor. You're blasting Democrats for not agreeing to a Republican bill -- one that would not expand coverage. Expanding coverage is the main point from the Democrats' perspective. To characterize that goal as "welfare" is the genuine tone deafness, in my view. A lack of coverage, after all, provides plenty of sad stories too, which conservatives scoff at. Anyway, you couldn't do "health insurance reform" without "bribing the healthy." That's how you make it affordable to stop the health insurance practices you don't like without eliminating the industry, which you also don't like. That's why the Republican alternative does not in fact stop those abuses. To do so without expanding coverage -- including to healthy people -- would put the health insurance industsry out of business.
Two points: I would think Judas has friends who are above average in both intelligence and awareness of public policy issues. Yet, the friend was clueless about the need for health insurance reform. Second, the insurers want you to believe that, without universal coverage mandated by the government, the insurers would be forced out of business. It didn't take much to convince the politicians of this myth. But I am neither as needy as they nor as unconfident in the private sector. For years the auto companies convinced American consumers to buy poorly built cars. Don't you think the health insurers can convince the young and healthy to buy health insurance? The government doesn't have ... view full comment
Two points: I would think Judas has friends who are above average in both intelligence and awareness of public policy issues. Yet, the friend was clueless about the need for health insurance reform. Second, the insurers want you to believe that, without universal coverage mandated by the government, the insurers would be forced out of business. It didn't take much to convince the politicians of this myth. But I am neither as needy as they nor as unconfident in the private sector. For years the auto companies convinced American consumers to buy poorly built cars. Don't you think the health insurers can convince the young and healthy to buy health insurance? The government doesn't have to do it for the insurers; they are more than able to do it themselves. One simple example. People buy life insurance at an early age in order to lock in a fixed rate for the insurance (never mind that it may be illogical, it works in marketing the insurance products). Why couldn't the health insurers offer fixed rates to the young so they would have the incentive to both buy insurance now and stay with the same insurer over the long term. It's unkind to say, but the Democrats, at least with respect to this issue, are providing cover for the insurers.