The Healthcare Clusterfucktastrophe Continues

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Ouchebag) says he'll "vote to block any health care bill that looks like the bill passed by the House."
"Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on," Nelson said in an interview that is part of ABC News' Subway Series with Jonathan Karl.

"Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it," he added. "For sure."

...There is one thing about the House bill, however, that Nelson does like: the strict ban on any abortion coverage by insurance plans bought with government subsidies.
Of course he does. Of course.
Unless the Senate bill includes a similar provision, Nelson said, he'll vote against it.

"Federal taxpayer money ought not to be used to fund abortions," Nelson said. "So whether it is subsidies on premiums or whether it is tax credits or whatever it should not be used to fund abortions."
See, but, here's the thing: Abortions? They're a medical procedure, and they are part of women's healthcare, even though not every woman needs/wants/gets an abortion(s). And as long as the federal taxpayer money is funding healthcare, it actually ought to be used to fund abortions. And the only reason it isn't it because abortions and healthcare are treated as mutually exclusive concepts.

Because I just haven't said it enough recently, the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal funding of abortion, is a misogynist and classist piece of shit, and I cannot believe the number of Democrats who defend it.

UPDATE: In comments, Shaker ErisDiscordia points to this post by Susie over at C&L (emphasis original):
So far this week, I've turned down two fund-raising calls for the state and national Democratic party. At first, I was just angry over the Stupak amendment, but now I know I'm going to have to save that money in case I need a gynecologist. From The Nation:
None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets.

...The fault for the initial omission can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who shied away from the issue, not wanting to invite controversy, according to women's health advocates who tried unsuccessfully to get women's preventive health care included in the basic benefits package. Some of the concern had to do with cost. Adding any required service to the basic benefits package would mean the Congressional Budget Office would give the bill a higher score, or price tag, leaving it more vulnerable to attack by budget hawks. But another part of the problem clearly stems from the fact that women's bodies have become political lightning rods, even when abortion is not the issue.
...Why, if I didn't know better, I'd swear the Democratic party just doesn't care about women.
Let me be perfectly clear: At this point, the Democratic Party now officially has to earn my vote back.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus