philosophy at age eight

“If you cannot control your peanut butter, you cannot expect to control your life.”
~ Judah-ism

Monday, November 9, 2009

the house healthcare bill sells out women and poor

Why is a Democrat-majority house so happy there were rumored tears of joy when they passed a health care bill that infringed on women's existing rights and absolutely screwed the poor of this country by mandating the purchase of an expensive service? A service that, I imagine, they would probably have purchased before if they could actually afford it in the first place? For instance, my parents. This bill, should it pass the Senate, would completely screw them over, laughable subsidies included. Me? Above the poverty line, sure, but still paying a tenth of my income on health care for my family. It is unacceptable to pretend that you're talking about "Health Care Reform" when you're just demanding that people who can't afford health insurance as it stands now produce sizable penalties when they still can't afford health insurance!

Thanks for nothing.

The subsidiaries are a joke of an amount, when they're discussed at all. I've been googling and googling for a number that means anything, and all I can get are obscure references to obscure percentages or statements to the fact that they're holding that info close to their chest. Hm. Maybe because it's a tease to keep us compliant and hopeful that this "reform" will actually help the poor, but they know that when they actually publish clear statements of what these health care subsidiaries will mean to you and I, they will have a riot on their hands.

Perhaps the tears were relief stemmed from no longer having to deal with the absolutely obnoxious conduct of the Republican party as they tried to conduct their business.

However, relief that you no longer have to deal with heckling doesn't excuse the fact that you, and 64 other Democrats, actually passed this horrible bill through the House. Where were all the progressives from the Progressive Caucus who swore they wouldn't pass anything less than a robust public option?

Cuz, in case you didn't notice, it ain't there.

According to NOW:

The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

  • Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
  • Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
  • Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.
And as Joe Walsh succinctly states in his article at Red Green and Blue:

A New Enemy Within? Greens, Gay Rights, Pro-Choicers and Peaceniks

More than in 1994 though, Democrats in Congress might be facing backlash from both sides as 2010 advances. The climate bill’s “giveaways” alone would not have been enough to energize hardcore progressives to unseat sitting Democrats, but add in the escalation in Afghanistan; a lack of progress on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell;” and, now the health care vote and its abortion amendment and Democratic leaders may have done just enough to instigate a mutiny that unites the four most active and important political power players within the party: greens, gay rights groups, anti-war advocates and pro-choice women’s interests.

In other words, it is not inconceivable that by splitting the baby (turning John Kerry’s famous phrase on its head, many Dems from deep blue states voted against the anti-abortion amendment before they voted for the bill), Democrats who were already vulnerable have made themselves beatable.

You said it. I'm ready to vote the Democrats out (including and especially Obama and Pelosi, prime sell-outs), and vote in someone who actually knows what the term "progressive" stands for.

No comments: