Posted on 12/24/2009 9:21:15 AM PST by rhema
The Senate health care bill is dead on arrival in the House of Representatives unless major changes are made, including removal of special “carve outs” for Medicaid funding for certain states and inclusion of language barring taxpayer-funded health plans that cover abortions, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday.
Faced with the possibility that House Democratic leaders and the White House will try to force the U.S. House to accept “as is” the health care bill that the Senate is poised to pass on Christmas Eve, the pro-life Democrat said the Senate bill differs too much from the version passed by the House to be accepted.
“If they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it’s going to go down in flames,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview.
CNSNews.com asked Stupak: “Are you prepared to vote for a bill that looks more like the Senate bill – and Senator Nelson’s language on abortion – than the House bill, with your language?”
“No, absolutely not,” said the Democratic congressman, whose district encompasses all of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and roughly one-quarter of the territory in the remainder of Michigan.
“The Senate bill will not receive support in the House,” Stupak said. “If they tell us we have to take that bill without changes, it will not survive the House. Regardless of the abortion language, there are just too many objectionable items in there that at least I see, and in talking with maybe a half-dozen other members, they sort of see the same thing.”
Stupak, like many in Congress, takes strong exception to the fact that, under the Senate plan, certain states would receive special “carve outs” for increased funding for Medicare/Medicaid.
“That’s not what it’s all about,” he said. “This is about health care, this is providing health care for all Americans – it’s not to see who can strike the best deal for their state. This is the wrong piece of legislation to try to do carve outs, or get an exception for your state and the rest of the country is supposed to pick up the tab. That’s not what health care is all about. That’s not the policy, that’s not the principle behind the bill.
In exchange for their votes for the Senate bill, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) reportedly obtained $100 million in additional Medicaid benefits for Nebraska and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) obtained $300 million in additional aid for Louisiana.
In addition, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) managed to obtain a carve-out for 800,000 Floridians, who will keep their Medicare Advantage plans, while those in other parts of the country are slated to lose their Medicare Advantage plans under the bill’s targeted cuts.
Stupak was incensed at the special deals.
“All the rest of us that live in states that did not receive that exception, why would we [be] inclined to give Nebraska or Florida or Louisiana a special break underneath the bill and expect the rest of us to pay for it?”
Beyond the carve-outs, Stupak pointed out that seniors “take some cuts in the Senate bill that are not found in the House bill [that] members are not going to accept” -- and that the bill would tax people who have “decent” health insurance programs.
“Aren’t you really going to force more people off health insurance?” Stupak said.
He added: “If you just take a look at my three main constituencies – Right to Life, labor unions, and senior citizens – the Senate bill is contrary to all their interests,” Stupak said.
“I’d have no real desire to vote for this bill the way its being outlined in the media," he said. "I know the bill’s not finalized yet, but if that holds true, if they expect the House to accept the Senate bill, it’s going to go down in flames.”
Stupak, who succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health care bill, also firmly rejected language in the Senate bill regarding abortion.
The “Stupak amendment,” as his provision is known, would prohibit the federal government from allocating taxpayer money to pay for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.
But the abortion language in the Senate bill secured by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), which attempts to segregate taxpayer money from paying for health plans that provide abortion, does not contain an outright ban on taxpayer money going to fund abortion.
Stupak, however, added: “Even if they fixed the abortion language, if it’s the Senate language, I have to vote for – I’m not voting for it.”
Wonder who’ll be DOA after vacation time is over?
OK, let’s discuss this. If I need to be corrected, I will be happy to be so. The amendment, in part, says:
“No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act (or amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”
The phrase that bothers me most is: “...including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself...”
So you are saying and very confident that an abortionist will not be able to get around this somehow? If so, I understand your viewpoint. But I do not trust the integrity or honesty of anyone who performs abortions for a living.
How many times has the stake in the heart for this criminal bill been forecasted?
Then, it clears every single committee, every singe roll call, every single floor vote.
Satan himself is pulling the levers on this one.
By the way, if you are not an "approved minority", you are going to have less health care rights under this plan. The Offices of Civil Rights and Minority Health ensure that.
Google it.
Does Stupak sit in any leadership positions on any committee’s?
What do Rahm and Nancy have to hold over his head?
Does he have 40 others who are willing to be stripped of all support and even primaried?
I don't know about the others' fortitude, but Stupak has gotten out farther on a limb than any other House or Senate member. I'd like to hope the conventional wisdom (i.e., he'll fold as Ben Nelson did) is wrong here, that there's one principled pro-life House Democrat, anyway.
Nancy has a 41 seat majority. She can afford to lose a few and still jam it down our throat.
Don’t know. All I know is the track record of supposedly “principled” Democrats is about equal to that of Hugo Chavez, which is to say, consistently left.
The Yoopers are about to get a Bridge to Nowhere, a mag-lev project from Escanaba to Marquette...and a spaceport for the Keeweenaw Peninsula.
But, in the end, they'll have to deal with taxpayer-funded abortion.
Eighty percent of the money that goes to Catholic Charities come from the government.
Far from it. I am much more orthodox. I call ‘em like I see em. The hierarchy is wrong about a lot of things. There are priests who would admit that to you. But there are many priests and bishops who turn a blind eye to the sewer culture we live in because that don’t want to upset the applecart. They get too much money from the liberals who run government. They may not like the abortion language in the health care bill, but you must notice that they could be a whole lot more forceful about it.
While I would prefer that elective abortion be illegal, exemptions for the life of the mother make sense to me - especially when the mother is a multiple-mom. The other kids deserve a chance to have a mother, too.
Sorry if I sounded like I was scolding - I didn't mean to.
No problem. And, as you mentioned, the wording does appear to be stronger.
One other point should be made about abortion - the (in financial terms) low cost of obtaining one. In Washington State where I live the average abortion costs $550. If it is so important to someone to have an abortion, why cannot they dig up the money themselves? Sell something; cancel internet, cell phone, cable; borrow the money from friends or relatives; go to a nonprofit for the money; ask Planned Parenthood to do it for free; do not go to the movies or the fast-food restaurant; and so forth.
The Clinton Assault Weapon Ban of '94 was pronounced dead a few times as well, until it finally passed. Do not assume ObamaCare is dead until after it's had its head cut off and stuffed with garlic.
bump
“‘ABORTION COMPROMISE’ DOES NOT ADDRESS CORE PROBLEM IN SENATE HEALTH BILL, SAYS CARDINAL DINARDO, BISHOPS’ PRO-LIFE CHAIR”
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-263.shtml
I believe he is far more prolife than Benedict Arnold Nelson. Stupak talks about the “sanctity of life.” Nelson never did.
Anybody from his district? CALL, visit or write him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.