I think I've finally figured out a way of pissing off both my pro-choice and pro-life readers in one post. Here goes.
I believe that if one's goal is to get health care to reflect the status quo on abortion, the Baucus proposal (reviled by pro-lifers) gets you in the zone. I further believe that the Republican amendments (reviled by pro-choicers) get you in the zone, too.
Activists on both sides will cast the other's position as not only mistaken but dangerously, immorally and obviously wrong. Truth is, under pressure from pro-lifers, Senate Democrats have now taken out the direct subsidies for abortion. (At some point, pro-lifers might consider the strategy of "declaring victory").
What's left are some murky areas involving indirect subsidies. Democrats have come up with one plan for insuring that taxpayers don't indirectly subsidize abortion. Republicans have come up with another. Frankly, each can cite valid precedents to prove their case. My gut: the Republican approach is cleaner and slightly closer to the status quo but both are defensible.
So where does that grayness-and-subjectivity leave us? It means that the test we've been using so far -- "does it reflect the status quo?" -- won't easily get this over the goal line. The obvious cases of the legislation departing from the status quo have been eliminated (in the Senate bill anyway); we're now into the realm of subjective minutia.
And where substance doesn't rule, raw politics shall.
What I keep hearing from Democrats is: why should we compromise more on abortion when it won't get us a single additional vote?
Ironically, because Republicans have more or less decided to oppose any health care reform bill, they've reduced their leverage on certain substantive matters like abortion.
There are Senate Democrats who would likely go along with the more-pro-life Enzi and Hatch amendments on abortion if they thought it would bring aboard Enzi and Hatch on to the health care legislation. Since Enzi and Hatch will almost certainly oppose health care reform, Democrats won't support their abortion amendments.
As it happens, the two Republicans the Democrats have the best chance of luring -- Maine's Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- are both pro-choice.
(The dynamics may eventually be different on the House side where there are 40 pro-life Democrats who might be affected by the final batch of abortion compromises).
In a way, this puts Mssrs. Enzi and Hatch in an interesting position. They probably have the ability to win a total victory on abortion for their side. All they'd have to do is agree to vote for health care reform in general. Which will be stronger: their concern for the unborn or their fear of other parts of Obamacare?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Gerard: "Cap payments in med mal. cases. Then, with the huge savings to insurers, eliminate pre-existing condition restrictions."
Yes, but the problem is that enacting such caps has not resulted in that much in savings. Texas and Florida both have enacted caps at the state level. Yet, according to one major insurer, there has been very little savings.
//www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/malpractice_ge.html
"Do caps on medical malpractice damage awards hold down doctors' liability insurance premiums? The nation's largest medical malpractice insurer says they don't.
GE Medical Protective's finding was made in a regulatory filing with the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI),in a document submitted by GE to explain why the insurer planned to raise physicians' premiums 19% a mere six months after Texas enacted caps on medical malpractice awards.
In 2003, Texas lawmakers passed a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage compensation to victims of medical malpractice caps after Medical Protective and other insurers lobbied for the change.
According to the Medical Protective filing: "Non-economic damages are a small percentage of total losses paid. Capping non-economic damages will show loss savings of 1.0%."
The company also notes that a provision in the Texas law allowing for periodic payments of awards would provide a savings of only 1.1%. The insurer did not even provide its doctors that relief and eventually imposed a rate hike on its physician policyholders.
"When the largest malpractice insurer in the nation tells a regulator that caps on damages don't work, every legislator, regulator and voter in the nation should listen," said Douglas Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights (FTCR)."
Other studies have verified these conclusions. The savings from medical malpractice caps will range in the 1-2 percent range.
There is no huge savings to pass on there.
Maybe I've missed it but what I don't see mentioned about abortion and the entire health care issue is that any attempt to cover the 40 million currently uninsured should be expected to significantly reduce abortion. Do the math...half of the 40M are women, and half of them will probably have an unplanned pregnancy at some point. That's 10M pregnancies. Anyone's who had kids can tell you how many pediatrician visits are involved in being a parent! MUCH more expensive than abortion, at least if you're uninsured. The difference between being uninsured and having insurance for you and your unborn child should be expected to make a huge difference in a woman's decision to keep an unplanned pregnancy. I just don't see how one can be pro-life and still want to maintain this status quo with respect to health care. Arguing over the details of govt funding or not for abortion in a congressional bill is like straining the gnat while you swallow the camel of all these unfortunate uninsured women.
bill: "The difference between being uninsured and having insurance for you and your unborn child should be expected to make a huge difference in a woman's decision to keep an unplanned pregnancy."
When survey after survey over the years have shown that economic circumstances are consistently in the top 2-3 reasons women give for having abortions, you would definitely think that anything at all that might improve those economic circumstances would be embraced by the pro-life movement.
And yet, in nearly every instance, any attempt to extend federal programs that promote and provide affordable pre- and post-natal care have been decried by the same lawmakers who call for creating a "culture of life".
Indeed...too many of them want a culture of life on the cheap.
RJohnson: "too many of them want a culture of life on the cheap." Unfortunately good deeds cost you something. If they dont't, it's called serving your best interests, not good deeds. I'm getting a little tired of the hypocrisy of so many of the "pro-life" movement. They're today's Pharisees. White-washed walls, broods of vipers, I could go on... Heaven help them.
Hi Bill!
What I found in my years working in the pro-life movement locally here in Iowa is that, at the grass-roots level, many individuals would give their right arm to end abortion. They would make significant sacrifices to put an end to abortion, whether it be marching to Washington DC, standing in front of clinics for hours upon end praying, or campaigning tirelessly for a legitimate pro-life candidate. There is a lot of energy in the rank-and-file pro-life community.
However, when a proposal such as healthcare reform, which has the potential of reducing the number of abortions in this nation, is presented many of these same, sincere individuals immediately question the cost of the matter. Unintentionally they put a price tag on human life, though they would cringe at the thought of doing that overtly.
I have asked many pro-life activists locally the following question: if you could be assured that a measure to improve pre- and post-natal healthcare would reduce the number of abortions by 10% in this nation, but in doing so it would raise your taxes 10%, would you support the program. That would be a reduction of nearly 4,000,000 abortions a year based on current estimates.
My heart is saddened when I realize just how few folks respond affirmatively to my question. Certainly there may be reasons I do not know as to why they cannot afford the additional 10%, but for many of these folks the appearances are that they could well afford it. They drive nice cars, live in well-decorated homes, have many luxuries...so to appearances they could afford the additional taxation. But many of them immediately say no...no more taxation, even to save the lives of those unborn children they are concerned about.
What would 4,000,000 fewer aborted children be worth to folks? For me, the additional 10% in taxes would amount to about the cost of one month's rental on our apartment, if applied to state and federal taxes, or if pro-rated over the year it would be about a pizza a week.
Ah well...we all have our reasons and situations in which we live.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.