Pelosi caves to Stupak

posted at 8:25 am on November 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

How desperate has Nancy Pelosi become for enough votes to pass her ObamaCare proposal this weekend? She has reversed course and given Bart Stupak (D-MI) a floor vote on his amendment to ban federal abortion funding in the bill. Pelosi had attempted to use another amendment to undermine Stupak’s support and get enough votes to keep from a humiliating loss:

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment blocking any money in its healthcare overhaul from funding abortions, risking the votes of members who support abortion rights.

Anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) had told a bleary-eyed Rules committee panel that a deal struck earlier in the day to move forward on the issue was off.

“There was some compromise language from different proposals that we thought would be satisfactory, our understanding was that we had an agreement. Two hours later it was not an agreement,” Stupak said as the clock neared 1 a.m. Saturday.

That sounds like bad news, in one sense.  Stupak’s coalition of pro-life Democrats could have kept Pelosi’s bill from passing.  Indeed, Stupak had threatened to work with Republicans on a motion to recommit, which would have killed the bill.  If Stupak gets his vote, he may wind up supporting the bill even if he loses and the bill remains with its current language.  Even if Stupak remains firm, members of his coalition may split after an up-or-down vote.

However, Stupak will almost certainly get the entire Republican caucus to support him, and perhaps more Democrats than the 40 Stupak already has.  If the amendment passes, Pelosi may have an entirely different problem:

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak’s language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

That’s a remarkable statement — since we don’t use federal funds now to pay for abortions.  Stupak’s amendment just maintains the status quo; it doesn’t actually change anything.  The coat-hanger argument has always been a red herring anyway, but in this instance it’s especially dishonest … unless Hastings et al see this bill as a complete government takeover of the health-care system, which it will definitely produce sooner or later.

If Pelosi loses the progressives over the ban on abortion funding, what would she have left?  The Blue Dogs won’t rescue this bill, not after this week’s elections and the nosedive in polling for ObamaCare, and especially not after the latest unemployment numbers.

Pass the popcorn.  This should be interesting, and still scary enough to keep pulse rates high.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I am pro-reform, pro-public option, but this bill doesn’t even remotely get me to defend it.

My idea was that we needed a major medical option for people that was guaranteed outside of the private sector. That way, no pre-existing conditions or purging tactics would be allowed. A catastrophe plan, covering only hopsitalization/major illness would have still be expensive, but it would have been doable for a lot more people who are out of work.

Instead, they have come up with this one-size fits all monstrosity of a bill.

Oh well.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Everyone has heard the Mr. Owens, D-NY23 who campaigned against the government option has now changed his mind and will vote for the Bill. I can’t get too worked up over what any of these people say.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:02 AM

I think the voters of New York 23 will change their minds in 2010. Owens will serve a short term.

donh525 on November 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Instead, they have come up with this one-size fits all monstrosity of a bill.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM

That’s the liberal way….

jbh45 on November 7, 2009 at 9:43 AM

healthcare for everybody is for nobody.

Kill it.

ted c on November 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Once again, the totalitarian traitors in D.C. triumph by distracting gullible citizens — including Mr Morrissey — by throwing them a bone of process to discuss.

Our America-hating “public servants” don’t give a damn about doing things the Constitutional way. They have taken power and, in the end, they will keep it while the fans of the Game of Politics go on thinking they are still actually a part of the process.

What we are witnessing here in the end of our Constitutional Republic, a nation founded by good people and nurtured by over two centuries of blood and sacrifice. When slime like Osama Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Hoyer and the rest of the power-hungry commissars refuse to play by the rules they took an oath to defend, the system fails. And too many of us, those who believed what we learned in civics classes, refuse to acknowledge that what was once a contests between philosophies is now a no-holds-barred war.

Nothing would please me more than to be proven wrong. But as of now, I’m not worried about elections in 2010 or whether a candidate can be found to replace the Chicago Jesus in ’12. The war is over, and America lost.

MrScribbler on November 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM

donh525 on November 7, 2009 at 9:41 AM

From your keyboard to God’s ear. I have to admit, it would take a lot of pork directed to that area to make up for that whopper. What a creep!

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM

But she is still the Speaker (for now) and can make life hell for someone who doesn’t toe the line.

Wethal on November 7, 2009 at 9:09 AM
//
She may be the dragon lady,but if were a blue mutt,I would be more afraid of my constituents!

ohiobabe on November 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Instead, they have come up with this one-size fits all monstrosity of a bill.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM

The purpose of this bill was not to provide national healthcare. It was to take over 1/6 of the national economy. It was all about governmental power for the democrats.

donh525 on November 7, 2009 at 9:50 AM

A catastrophe plan, covering only hopsitalization/major illness would have still be expensive, but it would have been doable for a lot more people who are out of work.

Instead, they have come up with this one-size fits all monstrosity of a bill.

Oh well.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM

Ann, I refuse to pay for my neighbors insurance. Or yours. Its not my problem or my business. I take care of mine, you take care of yours and yourself.

Its is WRONG to steal from me to give my earnings to someone else FOR ANY REASON. Why don’t you just invade my house and steal my stuff directly?

dogsoldier on November 7, 2009 at 9:51 AM

She may be the dragon lady,but if were a blue mutt,I would be more afraid of my constituents!

ohiobabe on November 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Does a blue mutt have a back bone? We shall see.

donh525 on November 7, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Ann, I refuse to pay for my neighbors insurance. Or yours. Its not my problem or my business. I take care of mine, you take care of yours and yourself.

Its is WRONG to steal from me to give my earnings to someone else FOR ANY REASON. Why don’t you just invade my house and steal my stuff directly?

dogsoldier on November 7, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Well, my own idea was that it wouldn’t need to be heavily subsidized, other than administration costs.

And it would provide a safety net, much needed, for a lot of hardworking, good people who are in a panic right now over losing their jobs.

I still believe in my version. However, I’m the only one with that version. *haha

As for the other attitude you express? I pay for other people’s stuff all the time in this country. It’s called taxes.

As long as there is open access to all of us, then that argument doesn’t wash with me.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:58 AM

I am pro-reform, pro-public option, but this bill doesn’t even remotely get me to defend it.

My idea was that we needed a major medical option for people that was guaranteed outside of the private sector. That way, no pre-existing conditions or purging tactics would be allowed. A catastrophe plan, covering only hopsitalization/major illness would have still be expensive, but it would have been doable for a lot more people who are out of work.

Instead, they have come up with this one-size fits all monstrosity of a bill.

Oh well.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM

I know you’re a democrat, and probably want to believe nice things about democrat politicians. The truth, though, is that this bill hasn’t a thing to do with covering people who aren’t covered. In fact, all data on socialized medicine will tell you that MORE people die under it. This is about creating a welfare state, making people utterly dependent, and securing their votes for the democrat ever after. It’s a power grab. Once health care is nationalized, every single election ever after becomes only about “he wants to take away your ‘free’ health care.” The dems will get the fear vote again and again. People will grumble about their rising taxes, but enough of them will vote their fear to keep the dems in power. Western nations with socialized health care don’t have conservative political parties. They have totally left, pretty left, kinda left, and left — and they all campaign on “preserving” the welfare state. The welfare state has always been about keeping leftists in power. It’s the beginning of the end of the United States of America, even if many of us won’t be around to see its inevitable conclusion with leftists in power. We’re likely to see our ugly future played out in Europe, though, in the next 25 years or so, and it isn’t gonna be pretty.

Rational Thought on November 7, 2009 at 9:58 AM

The purpose of this bill was not to provide national healthcare. It was to take over 1/6 of the national economy. It was all about governmental power for the democrats.

donh525 on November 7, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Well, I never particularly get involved in the motive discussions. I don’t think anyone can claim one way or another with much credibility.

I do think the bill as it is reminds me of 1960′s entitlement program thinking.

I thought Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama absolutely said, “We couldn’t stand Clinton’s direction. We’re going back to the old ways.” And that group won.

It was a huge mistake.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I tell ya you know what would be great to see Sarah arrive on capital hill get into the house and sit in the visitors section for all the Representatives to see. That would scare the blue dogs sh!tless.

Clyde5445 on November 7, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I know you’re a democrat, and probably want to believe nice things about democrat politicians.

USED to be. :)

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM

I thought Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama absolutely said, “We couldn’t stand Clinton’s direction. We’re going back to the old ways.” And that group won.

It was a huge mistake.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:00 AM

I think the Kennedy endorsement was more about the libs knowing that Obama could be rolled on just about everything because of his lack of experience. They knew HRC was a controlling freak who be all up in their grill and Obama would leave it to them to draft all bills…..all they saw was a nice looking pen in him…..and that is all he is.

tatersalad on November 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Wow…she’s going to allow an others to speak!….Wowww! I had these people all wrong. I thought they were a bunch of arrogant pompous asses.
/s

Itchee Dryback on November 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Once health care is nationalized, every single election ever after becomes only about “he wants to take away your ‘free’ health care.

I see the threat. Believe me. However, I do believe that government is for people, too. And the current crisis spoke for a real need to be addressed.

The problem is that it has been used by politicians inappropriately.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM

HA attorneys and legal scholars, here’s a question: If this clusterfark passes, who would have standing to challenge it on constitutional grounds? Any citizen forced to take part in it? I ask only because the rules on standing and jurisdiction and the like have always been murky to me. For instance, I would think any American would have standing to challenge Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, but the Court refused to hear those cases and I know at least one of those refusals was based on the fact that the plaintiff lacked standing.

I feel like if this thing ever made it in front of the Supreme Court it would surely be struck down. I’m just wondering how we get there. Do we have to wait until someone refuses to buy health insurance and is jailed and/or fined for doing so?

NoLeftTurn on November 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM

And the current crisis spoke for a real need to be addressed.

The problem is that it has been used by politicians inappropriately.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM

It’s only a crisis for the lazy and other ner’ do wells who are about to not get free healthcare to compliment their free income, food, housing, etc…..in other words, the Democratic voting base.

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Ann, I refuse to pay for my neighbors insurance. Or yours. Its not my problem or my business. I take care of mine, you take care of yours and yourself.

Its is WRONG to steal from me to give my earnings to someone else FOR ANY REASON. Why don’t you just invade my house and steal my stuff directly?

dogsoldier on November 7, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Ann is under the assumption that congress is doing this for the benefit of their constituents, instead of the representative’s own enrichment. She’s failed the “follow the money” rule, and therefore, misses the special insterests that inevitably influence the language of legislation for their benefit.
It’s much easier to demonize the eeee-vul insurance companies, yet lionize the caring abortion clinics. Life is really simple if you look at it through a liberal prism.

mossberg500 on November 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM

It’s only a crisis for the lazy and other ner’ do wells who are about to not get free healthcare to compliment their free income, food, housing, etc…..in other words, the Democratic voting base.

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Well, you’re entitled to your personal judgments. At over 10% unemployment, I disagree.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Folks, I may be reading AnninCA incorrectly but I think her biggest desire is for those with pre-existing conditions to have access to affordable healthcare. I am pretty sure that she is open to anyone who comes up with a fix to that problem.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Folks, I may be reading AnninCA incorrectly but I think her biggest desire is for those with pre-existing conditions to have access to affordable healthcare. I am pretty sure that she is open to anyone who comes up with a fix to that problem.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 10:15 AM

That and the purging after premiums are paid. That infuriated me when the companies started pulling that stunt.

You couldn’t get by with it in the car insurance industry!

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:17 AM

think the Kennedy endorsement was more about the libs knowing that Obama could be rolled on just about everything because of his lack of experience. They knew HRC was a controlling freak who be all up in their grill and Obama would leave it to them to draft all bills…..all they saw was a nice looking pen in him…..and that is all he is.

tatersalad on November 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Me, too. But the progressive wing of the Dems wanted to call the shots.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:18 AM

…And the current crisis spoke for a real need to be addressed.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I would question your premise that there is a “crisis.”

If the crisis is that not everyone can afford top notch-health care, then it appears that the more necessary the perceived need is, the less ownership and freedom for the possessor of that property or skill.

How is it there are no call for regulating the income of athletes or actors but there is for doctors? The justification? We “need” medical care but we don’t “need” sports or entertainment. And since medical care is so important we need to limit what doctors can charge, where they can work, or what they can do. Isn’t that backwards?

casel21 on November 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Starring Nancy Pelosi… as Nurse Rachett.

Griz on November 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM

That and the purging after premiums are paid.

Since I live in San Diego, I’d like to know what evidence you have regarding this statement. Unless you made a fraudulent statement on your application and/or paid your premium after the grace period, I’ve never heard anyone being “purged”, whatever that means.

mossberg500 on November 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:17 AM

I have seen the car insurance and the homeowner insurance folks do some shady stuff to but I agree. I doubt that the percentage of people who get ill due to their own negligence is sufficiently high to justify the terminations.

Cindy Munford on November 7, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Well, you’re entitled to your personal judgments. At over 10% unemployment, I disagree.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM

10% unemployment, huh? How many government employees are included in that number? None. Virtually all “jobs saved or created” by Porkulus are government jobs.

Why is unemployment at 10%? May I introduce you to NAFTA, China, and India. And their best friends, the EPA and the EEOC, OSHA, and US tort law?

Solve the problem. When you’re running around sticking your finger in the dike to plug the holes, don’t forget the hoels aren’t the problem. It’s the water on the other side of the dike.

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 10:26 AM

As for the other attitude you express? I pay for other people’s stuff all the time in this country. It’s called taxes.

As long as there is open access to all of us, then that argument doesn’t wash with me.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:58 AM

Yeah, I know all about taxes and where they started. An idiot democrat named wilson and a socialist jerk named FDR. But that doesn’t make it correct or ethical, precisely the reasons we are seeing now.

Open access and opportunity cost is all liberal bull dip.
You do not have the right to steal whats mine and give it to someone else.

And you cant give the government the authority to do it for you.

Oh and by the way, if the libs taxed the private sector less and werent so hostile to the private sector, unemployment would be 17.5%. (its not 10.2 that number is BALONEY. Please refer to the bls.gov website and search for the U-6 or actual unemployment number.)

dogsoldier on November 7, 2009 at 10:27 AM

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

Dark things using coat hangers deserve what they are giving to the person they are using the coat hanger upon.

unclesmrgol on November 7, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Liberal Lexicon:

Taxes: What liberals make rich people pay so liberal pols can stay in office.

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Taxes: What liberals make rich people pay so liberal pols can stay in office.

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 10:29 AM

Rich people being defines as anyone with a job. Check your pay stub. They take at least a third of your money even if you earn minimum wage.

There is no more addictive drug as other people’s money. You can quote me on that.

dogsoldier on November 7, 2009 at 10:31 AM

10% unemployment, huh? How many government employees are included in that number? None. Virtually all “jobs saved or created” by Porkulus are government jobs.

On that point, we can agree and toast. I am appalled that it’s only in CA that gov’t workers are even having to take furloughs. And that, too, is being challenged by the gov’t unions in Court.

It’s absurd.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM

So Amish and Scientology will face prison or pay for a health plan they will not use? If they get this health care reform their (Liberal) way, then not only 1/6 economy, but a total grab for your personal liberty’s. When you want the government to take care of all your problems, then you will give up all your freedom. The argument to reduce cost will include taxing risky behavior. Motor cycle permit and health care offset tax,
or tax on Cholesterol, Sugar, or whatever. They could monitor your blood and tax you on whats in it.
Cap and Trade will move money around so corrupts can skim billions. It will be the biggest eliminator of Freedom for Market.
Health Care – Personal Freedom.
Cap and trade – Free Market.

Ed Laskie on November 7, 2009 at 10:34 AM

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM

A few got days off in New Hampshire. Now that dems run the state there are budget problems. Like they spent a lot more money than they had and now they are trying to figure out more taxes to pay for it.

Of course the notion of not spending the money never occurred to them.

dogsoldier on November 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM

Since I live in San Diego, I’d like to know what evidence you have regarding this statement. Unless you made a fraudulent statement on your application and/or paid your premium after the grace period, I’ve never heard anyone being “purged”, whatever that means.

mossberg500 on November 7, 2009 at 10:24 AM

I saw some of that with the redlining debate and homeowners, but that’s not after you file a claim for fire if they have agreed to underwrite your home. I only saw the “Now, Allstate is underwriting this area. Now, Allstate is not.” That may drive consumers buggy, but it’s not the same as pulling out the insurance when you’re in the middle of chemo!

Oh dear, I’m getting too worked up. *haha I just was appalled that the insurance companies used people’s trust and then switched practices. You don’t find out until it’s too late.

Blue Cross in CA has some really obvious and huge pending class-action suits. They used to be a trust brand.

It’s disgusting what’s gone on.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM

A few got days off in New Hampshire. Now that dems run the state there are budget problems. Like they spent a lot more money than they had and now they are trying to figure out more taxes to pay for it.

This is O/T, but you want to know what CA paid for 2 years ago? Paid time off for gov’t workers to go march with the illegal immigrants who were demanding more in the state.

I’m not kidding.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:37 AM

OK, I better get off the thread before I am truly guilty of hijacking it.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:38 AM

According to the LA Times, at least 10.2% of us (and rising) will be required to pay fines because they won’t buy healthcare insurance.

unclesmrgol on November 7, 2009 at 10:39 AM

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

Dark things using coat hangers deserve what they are giving to the person they are using the coat hanger upon.

unclesmrgol on November 7, 2009 at 10:27 AM

Hey Alcee, I forsee you being old and close to dying and you’ll be nice and warm after that.

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Hey Ann,

The House bill is over 2000 pages long. Most discussion is centered on a handful of issues, which really does a dis-service to the rest of the legislation.

So, why don’t we take up a few of the “B” side issues?

Like, government access to medical records. Under the bill, the government wants to digitize all personal medical information and make it available to “participating members” in an effort to remove in-efficient administrative and duplicative medical procedures.

Ok, that sounds like a great idea. But, let’s examine the first phrase I used. Government access to medical records. The bill will allow any, and that means ANY, government agency will have access to your personal medical information. Currently, that requires a subpeona.

Under the bill, they won’t need a court order any more. They already have your information.

Are you, a confessed social liberal, okay with that?

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Does anyone know why Romney could not have done this when he was putting together Romneycare? I never understood how it got passed that there was a $50 copay for abortion under Romneycare? Couldn’t the voters have voted on an amendment if the legislature wanted to keep the $50 copay??

texasconserv on November 7, 2009 at 10:51 AM

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

The government also gives themselves free access to your bank accounts and all your tax records.

dogsoldier on November 7, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Under the bill, they won’t need a court order any more. They already have your information.

Are you, a confessed social liberal, okay with that?

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I haven’t figured out how that one works, to be honest. I don’t understand why the privacy laws need to be skirted to implement the efficiency.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

It’s getting ugly in the House this morning. Dingell has lost control, the Dems are parading all the women up revising their remarks, eating up time. The R’s are pissed, Sessions is HOT.

ProudinNC on November 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM

I like electronic records, but they should be owned and controlled by owner and not government. You should have to sign off on anyone accessing your records. We should know each time someone accesses our health records and for what reason.

Ed Laskie on November 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM

I like electronic records, but they should be owned and controlled by owner and not government. You should have to sign off on anyone accessing your records. We should know each time someone accesses our health records and for what reason.

Ed Laskie on November 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Ditto here. I can’t figure out why they’d have to skirt HIPPA to implement this.

You sign off, then you can release. But why would they have to forego subpoena rights? The government shouldn’t have those records unless you’re actually choosing their public option.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I haven’t figured out how that one works, to be honest. I don’t understand why the privacy laws need to be skirted to implement the efficiency.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 10:53 AM

That Constitution thingy is certainly a barrier to socialism, isn’t it?

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 11:01 AM

The government shouldn’t have those records unless you’re actually choosing their public option.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Well, duh.

And when there are no private insurers left, who won’t be “choosing” the public option? But you’re okay with a blanket waiver of Constitutional rights by being forced into a government plan? Doesn’t that, in effect, mean the government is taking away your constitutional right to privacy by using the threat of fines and/or imprisonment?

And what country are we talking about here?

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Welcome folks, to the AnninCA Show, and watch everyone bounce off of her like a superball.

leftnomore on November 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

She will say anything and do anything like most democrats. Do and say what is necessary and to hell with being held to it. Its out of control because we have left idiots like this stay in way too long.

bluegrass on November 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 11:07 AM

OK, but that’s not now. I don’t know that you guys are right at all about private insurance disappearing. I tend to think that never will happen. Medicare supplemental plans are hugely popular, eg.

And I don’t see this country being at all willing to go the single payer route. We are not Europe.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM

Welcome folks, to the AnninCA Show, and watch everyone bounce off of her like a superball.

leftnomore on November 7, 2009 at 11:09 AM

LOL* I knew I should have gotten off this thread!

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM

OK, but that’s not now. I don’t know that you guys are right at all about private insurance disappearing. I tend to think that never will happen. Medicare supplemental plans are hugely popular, eg.

And I don’t see this country being at all willing to go the single payer route. We are not Europe.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I’m talking about just the public option. When the private insurers no longer have a single policy written outside of the government mandated insurance requirements, they are in effect no longer private. They become essentially the equivalent to Fannie Mae. Those mandated requirements are those currently swimming around in Pelosi’s bill.

1) Government access to private medical information
2) Governemtn access to personal financial data and accounts
3) Threat of fines/imprisonment for non-comliance
4) Governemnt-determined care
etc..

BobMbx on November 7, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Short answer:, good political move by Pelosi & Company improving from “Evil” to “Disastrous for the country” still doesn’t do the job.

Long answer here.

Exit question, if the Amendment passes would it survive conference? I think not.

petertheslow on November 7, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I thought Tupac was dead. Now apparently he is a congressman.

Jerricho68 on November 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM

House Dimbulb leadership team runnng their mouths now… how I loathe them and their perpetual lying!

ya2daup on November 7, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Pulse rate? Try my blood pressure is in overdrive today. Been cleaning, trying to keep my mind off of this, but alas, how can we? This is sooooooooo important, and crucial to kill this bill, and I’ve never felt more helpless in my life. :(

capejasmine on November 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM

capejasmine on November 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Me too! I had to leave the house for a few hours just to get away from the mess in Washington D.C.

We’ll know tonight and if the bill isn’t killed then I hope the Congress has some jobs lined up or have other plans made in 2010, because many are done.

yoda on November 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Everyone in the gallery today is against the bill, because they can’t help bursting into applause whenever someone makes a good point against it. Dingell keeps having to tell them that expressions of approval or disapproval are not allowed. I hope it makes an impression on the rest of the House, though.

Animator Girl on November 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM

With the endless stream of people like AnninCA in this country, I really really need to get into the Rose-Colored Glasses business… stat!

SilverStar830 on November 7, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Mr. Dingle fails to warn the crowd who are applauding when the Dems speak. I’ve seen it happed twice so far.

kringeesmom on November 7, 2009 at 2:48 PM

kringeesmom on November 7, 2009 at 2:48 PM

I noticed that too. Rules don’t count if the crowd is cheering for the Democrats who are ruining our country.

I think Charles Rangel said their (Congress) names will go down in history with FDR…..hmmm the only history that they will go down with is 2010 when the Democrats will be booted out of Congress. Now I call that history!!

yoda on November 7, 2009 at 3:01 PM

More applause from the Gallery on Dems speaking, No warning from Mr. Dingle.

kringeesmom on November 7, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Per the dems, the bill pays for itself, saves Medicare and reduces the deficeit. Sunshine and lollypops all over the place.

kringeesmom on November 7, 2009 at 3:06 PM

I had a headache before I started listening to the Democrats speaking of the history that they are making today and all of the little snipits of sweet stories and you know….I feel better and have been healed. //

Barney is on….

yoda on November 7, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Instead, they have come up with this one-size fits all monstrosity of a bill.

AnninCA on November 7, 2009 at 9:40 AM

That’s the liberal way….

jbh45 on November 7, 2009 at 9:43 AM

.
That is one of the problems with all government problems. Once size fits all, when we all know it doesn’t.

Dasher on November 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Arrg — ONE size fits all.

Dasher on November 7, 2009 at 4:43 PM

“STUPAK.” Is that the Polish spelling of a pro-PelosiCare Blue Dogs’ political action committee I’d overlooked?

Barnestormer on November 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2