Abortion coverage should not be holding up the healthcare bill

I’m a staunch advocate of abortion rights. I’m also a staunch realist. Perhaps that’s why I am often baffled by politicians.

I can’t for the life of me understand why the healthcare legislation appears to be stalling over abortion coverage.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of women who get abortions never bill their insurance companies, anyway.

Let the conservatives have their little victory here, chalk up one favor owed in your quid pro quo column ("…remember how we let you have the abortion exception? Well, now you need to pay us back by giving ground on item X in the healthcare bill…"), and get the damn thing passed already. It’s called compromise, and trying to do something that benefits the most people.

What am I missing in the bigger picture here? Is this just a pissing contest, so both sides look to their constituency like they’re doing something? Or is there really something major on the line here?

Your right, abortion coverage should not be holding up the healthcare bill. They should drop the abortion language and move on.

Nor Should Ben Nelson.
He needs to realize that he is elected by Nebraska Democrats, rather than Nebraskans in general.
Then he needs to start voting like a Democrat.

I just got an email from one of my senators, who I had written to encourage to vote in favor of the bill.

Well, at least I know who I’m not voting for when that seat comes up for re-election.

Wasn’t that the problem in the first place, for some pro-lifers? That originally abortion wasn’t specifically mentioned, meaning doctors could treat patients and abortion could be covered?

That’s not including women who have no insurance, or those whose policies don’t cover it. From your link

Trouble is, there are any number of democrats - at least in certain places - who Don’t support abortion rights. If you have a Senator - who is a democrat - but who knows that his particular constituency has enough ‘pro-lifers’ that he can gain some political capital by getting up on a soap box over this particular issue, he will.

I don’t get it. What does an abortion cost? Three or four hundred bucks? That doesn’t even meet a deductible. I can’t imagine that either way this provision would affect anymore than a handful of women.

I’m for healthcare reform. It’s badly needed. However, I have to agree with your Senator. The proposed legislation is too big, too unwieldy and moving too fast. The Democrats blew it, the Republicans played spoilers, and Obama is turning out to be ineffective as a true leader.

I fail to see how a legal procedure should be stricken. Why not deny coverage for triple bypasses or appendectomies while we’re at it?

Exactly. Granted for some that is a lot of money, but it isn’t so much that most people couldn’t somehow scrape it together even when they are in a pinch.
And if you couldn’t scrape it together, aren’t there places that will provide abortions at little to no cost?

Possibly that the amendment the Senate will debate was offered by Sen. Ben Nelson (D), Nebraska.

cite

A similar dynamic could exist in the Senate, with anti-abortion Democrats preventing final approval of the health care bill if they don’t like the abortion language.

Obama turns out to be ineffective because of the health care bill? So far he’s come closer to passing health care reform than any president. His knuckling under to the military and intensifying the occupation of Afghanistan, well that is another story, but then that’s not the subject of this thread.

So, ALL of the Republicans and a sorry few of the Democrats are thuggish neanderthals who don’t know how to say anything but “No” and it’s OBAMA that’s ineffective? Doesn’t the fact that one entire whole party has committed to being nothing but a speed bump ON EVERYTHING count for anything?

Not if you believe the health care bill is a big mistake. I’m of the opinion that abortion is a handy thing to cancel the bill on, but it’s probably not the main issue. I just wish people who were against this bill would say why. It’s too big, it’s unmanagable, and it’s too damn expensive. With all of the money being spent that we don’t have, flushing this bill would be the most prudent thing our government could do right now.

/slight hijack
On abortion, I have a question… does anyone know how the abortion pill has been working in Europe? Any major side effects? A pill has to be cheaper than an operation.

And is the reason why the abortion pill is not available in this country the result of politics or real concerns of side effects?

/slight hijack

Okay, kind of true. I was severely disappointed when they went straight to public option and blew off single payer. Fuck the insurance companies…

It is available in the US.

It reduces the future deficits, and thus leads to less spending that we don’t have.

As for big, I don’t think a meaningful healthcare bill is likely to be small.

I don’t know what ‘unmanagable’ means in this context.

He means that there are too many Republicans in office to allow America to oversee UHC like every other country in the world manages to do. I think there is something about hair combed to within an inch of its life that robs the brain underneath of intelligence.

Meh. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security get along alright despite occasional Republican grumbling, I suspect UHC will do alright as well, for similar reasons.

They’ll be OK as long as the govt doesn’t get it’s hands on them :slight_smile: