If you have "no place to go," come here!

Two Extreme Lowlights of the "Bipartisan" Senate "Healthcare Reform"

connecticut man1's picture

If it gets any more Bipartisan this Healthcare Reform bill will be issuing hunting permits for your quota of women entering and leaving women's health clinics.

Because this is supposed to be a bipartisan effort to fix healthcare and all, and that is all the left really wants to do is to fix it so people have access to Doctors in this healthcare reform. First a word from our regularly scheduled people that respect women and their rights:

Why aren't Nelson and Stupak's anti-abortion actions labeled 'ideological'?

Can someone explain to me why Rep. Stupak and Sen. Nelson's attacks on a woman's legal reproductive rights are not being called into question over nothing more than their push to inject conservative ideology into the health-care bill? And why are the media not highlighting this at all?

It's a complete and utter media bias against women. Liberals are being portrayed by the media elites as being against the Senate health-care bill on the grounds of ideology because of the exclusion of the public option, but any serious person knows our beef is with the
actual legislation of the bill and how it will help Americans. The public option is a tool that could create real competition against the health care insurance industry, and is its own cost-control mechanism. We also loved the Medicare buy-in at fifty five, but that fig leaf which was yanked out from under us -- a fact missing from the Sunday talk shows.

Clearly worrying about whether or not people can actually afford to get to see Doctors is only a lefty liberal issue and it is all ideological when the majority of Americans agree with us concerning the very real need for a Public Option. But attacking a woman's rights to get legal procedures for her own personal healthcare needs? Bipartisan American ideals even when the Majority of Americans have said over and over again that they believe in the basic principle that it is a matter of women's rights.

The political and media establishment need to check their collective clue clock because it is ringing the alarm bells and telling them to wake the frick up. This is oppression of women and that is what you want to call bipartisan efforts to pass healthcare reform?

Now - fair warning, this is likely to make your blood boil a bit if you missed it - this next one is a real thing of beauty, courtesy of mcjoan, that is just as ideologically right-wing insane, typically bipartisan and the absolute anti-thesis of saving more lives:


Is there anything our political "leaders" won't do for the NRA? Check out this, from the new manager's amendment [pdf].


‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health
promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not
require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or
ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual. [p. 5]

It goes on for another page and a half about what the feds can't do
vis-a-vis your precious guns. Too bad the founders didn't create a
specific amendment that gave women as much protection for their
uteruses as their guns.

Update by SusanG: Mother Mags looks on the bright side, in comments:

Well, at least they didn't mandate that

everyone has to own a gun, and then limit our choice to one manufacturer that doubles its price every 5 years.

This is supposed to be a healthcare reform bill? I am a liberal that supports gun rights, but that does not mean I am against reasonable questions as to "Where did the gun come from that you accidentally shot your mother with, kid?" Someone has to take responsibility for the stupidity. And including language like this anywhere in the law is pretty dumb, IMHO, but including it IN A HEALTHCARE BILL is about as stupid, fringe, radical and far right wingut whackjobbery as it gets.

This just the worst of the worst I have seen so far.

The real bipartisan efforts in DC that always leave Americans dead and their real rights as casualties, and there is plenty more to criticize and, YES, there still is some really good stuff, as incomplete as it is, to highlight.

No votes yet


madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

What a great post, and you are really asking some good questions.

Why isn't a woman's right to choose being protected by the Democrats, and why is no one talking about it, and why is the NRA crap being inserted into this bill?

Because the Democrats want the wingnut $$$ and vote. Howard Dean made it quite clear that this was one of his goals as head of the DNC.

Thus, Bush's "conscience rule" has not been overturned or superseded by Obama despite his promises to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) "first thing" upon being inaugurated. Thus, Obama is expanding faith-based initiatives to a scale Bush only dreamed of. Thus, Rick Warren who is radically right-wing on LGBT and women's rights is Obama's inaugural pastor.

Etc. etc. etc. It's all about the ducats and the get-out-the-vote machine.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I am quite sure our Chicago Machine politicians told her she could forget about funding and support for her Senate race if she didn't fall in line.

This will keep happening until there is a real alternate source of funding for liberal candidates other than the Democratic Party machine.

connecticut man1's picture
Submitted by connecticut man1 on

and the typically wonkish stuff to see what others have found and these are, by far, the two most incredibly stupid things in the bill.

ZERO to do with providing healthcare, and nothing to do with reforming insurance, either, and absolutely nothing to do with any left agenda, fer sure.

And the gun law? I believe this is a little snippet the NRA has coveted for a while and has been kicked back on a few occasions. In a frigin' healthcare bill? I mean, WTF?

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

only a bit quicker than it took me to pull myself off her supporter list and ask for my money back.

Not that there were any better choices on offer, also depressing.

Interesting, though, that the Globe article is trying to provide her cover now that she's mouthing the Versailles-approved line, after being not nearly as friendly during the primary campaign.

Kill the freakin' bill.

thebewilderness's picture
Submitted by thebewilderness on

I'm sure we were all very concerned that health care providers might force their patients to advise them if they were armed and dangerous.