Pres. Obama Asks for "Up or Down Vote" on Current "Deal" on HCR:

[amborin]

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats said they neared agreement Saturday on a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system, putting them within reach of approving legislation by Christmas.

...

Mr. Reid’s amendment includes major restrictions on abortion that were intended to win support for the bill from Mr. Nelson. Under Mr. Reid’s proposal, health insurance plans are not required or forbidden to cover abortion services, but there is a major exemption that would give states power to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance markets, or exchanges, where most health plans would be sold.

Mr. Reid’s amendment also includes a substantial increase in federal contributions to Nebraska’s costs of providing Medicaid coverage to the poor.

also: just one of many critical comments:

"If the last newspaper report is accurate, this bill will kill more people than it saves. By allowing insurance companies to sell policies over state lines without any state regulation, you're going to see huge consolidation of the industry, and a race to the bottom as far as responsiveness and service are concerned.

For example, there are a bunch of conditions that insurance companies are not allowed to exclude from coverage in California. Before those laws went into effect, patients were simply out of luck if they developed those conditions. They still had insurance, it just didn't pay for anything to do with that condition. This is still perfectly legal in some other states. Bets on how long those people would have their care covered?

Not to mention the fact that, with binding arbitration agreements, someone who was unfairly denied coverage ILLEGALLY would probably have to fly to Delaware or South Dakota in order to talk to the arbiter (so that they could be denied redress.)

Yep, he said it. An up or down vote. Finally, someone throws their precious phrase back at them.

from daily kos

The President looks back to the bipartisan Patient's Bill of Rights, a bill that was defeated in Congress at the hands of special interests and their supporters, and notes that health insurance reform covers the same ground and much more in terms of giving the consumers the upper hand over their insurance companies. He calls on the Senate to allow an up-or-down vote, and for those opposing reform to stop using parliamentary maneuvers to drag it out.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address/>

[mzmolly]

1. Sounds like the states will have a say in how the exchanges operate.

However, I wonder if those buying in can simply choose an option from another state?

[amborin]

3. someone may have addressed that in the comment added to the OP

[mzmolly]

7. I honestly don't think the new bill will require anyone to fly across

state lines. Also keep in mind the new agreement allows for people to buy into the Federal system, which does NOT deny abortion coverage. I think it's essentially a non-issue?

[dflprincess]

2. And when all the insurance companies take advantage of the

provision that allows them to sell across state lines and move to some red state with little or no regulation women everywhere will be at the mercy of whatever that state's legislature decides about abortion. (Remember South Dakota and credit card rates.)

[bain_sidhe]

4. Another possible concern...

The headline of Section (B)(4) says "NO DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF PROVISION OF ABORTION" but the actual language only prohibits discrimination against providers that are UNWILLING to provide abortions. Where's the comparable language preventing descrimination against providers who ARE willing to provide abortions? Even if the plan won't pay for an abortion, can the customer go to a provider for other services if that provider DOES provide abortions? That's not clear to me.

Unfortunately, I'm going out of town pretty soon, so I'll have to leave the analysis to others for now. But this struck me as a possible problem...

[napi21]

5. A State can require any ins. co's that sell into their State NOT

cover elective abortions. I'm not positive, but I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't exist in some states now. The requirement in THIS BILL is that many ins. co's that currently do not sell into certain states will now be able to. Other than that, it appears the rest of what they put in the bill simply reinforces the Hude amendment.

[earthside]

6. Bad for Abortion Rights

According to the Washington Post's summary:

"Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/19/AR2009121900797_pf.html)

"Pay for coverage with a separate check"? Wow.

How many women 'plan' for this kind of procedure?

If you don't have employer coverage and you're a woman in an anti-choice state, well, you apparently don't even get the option of writing a separate check.

It actually sounds kind of sick, when you think about it.

Furthermore, this is a gift to the Right-to-Life crowd; they can now gin-up campaigns in every state in the union to "opt out." Republican strategists are going to absolutely love this.

[begin_within]

8. Down.

[amborin]

11. LOL! agree

[Duke Newcombe]

9. Fourth Quarter leadership, Mr. President...

a day late and a dollar short, sir.

[Bluebear]

10. Ah, the coach comes in to give his input on the final play.