Okay.. well the last minute waffling was resolved with some intensive pressure. I'm glad to see this, and hope it portends well for his vote on the Conference Report.

I'm repeating this from Carla's thread because it shows just how dumb Blue Oregon bloggers are in not actually understanding this bill:

If the mandate wasn't enough for your pinheads who have no clue what this is all about to oppose this bill, has passage of the Stupak amendment has passed that will severely limit the ability of working people to even find insurance that covers abortion, a legal medical procedure gotten through to you why there are bad politics around this bill?

(Last night) Pelosi allowed Stupak to offer his amendment, which everybody knew would pass, because she guessed that if she could get the arrogant but stupid wing like we see at Blue Oregon to ignore the mandate and to do the work pushing their representatives like Shrader to support it, they'll be too stupid and egotistical to reverse themselves once the Stupak amendment passed.

So know what are you going to do Carla and Kari? And Nick?

You are not supporting a bill with significant practical anti-choice effect. The Stupak amendment is certain to survive conference.

They are voting on the bill tonight, so it is too late to undo what you have done by calling Congress people. The only hope is that progressives in Congress will actually find the backbone and there aren't 218 votes to pass it.

Thanks a lot you ignorant jerks.

This:

You are not supporting a bill with significant practical anti-choice effect. The Stupak amendment is certain to survive conference.

should have said this:

You are now supporting a bill with significant practical anti-choice effect. The Stupak amendment is certain to survive conference.

@ calling in opposition

You're so persuasive with your name calling and expressions of contempt for all the lesser beings who populate the universe.

Bill R - The truth is the truth and persuading the ignorant or a jerk like you is irrelevant. But the fact you put ego ahead of what is right, is just once again evidence why people like you have nothing worthwhile to offer anybody.

To cheer what the House did tonight is morally bankrupt.

While progressives want to see health care reform, HR 3962 is NOT the way to do it. Far from being progressive, this bill contains elements that make it one of the most fascist pieces of legislation ever threatened upon the American people.

HR 3962 requires all Americans who do not have health care through their employer to buy health insurance from private health insurance companies. If you do not buy the basic health care package (the Congressional Budget Offices estimates put it around $15,000 annually for a family of four for the most basic package), you will be taxed an additional 2.5% of adjusted gross income. If you continue your "non-compliance" to this health care racket, you be subject to up to a $250,000 fine and/or 5 years imprisonment.

Folks, this is not like requiring car insurance, as the dishonest supporters of the bill are framing it. You don't have to drive if you can't afford the costs of car ownership (you can use socialized transportation like Tri-Met). This is the government forcing a fee just to be alive in the USA.

And compliance with HR3962 doesn't end there. Once your family is forced under threat of felony criminal prosecution into this basic health care collectivised state of existence, you no longer have the right to refuse treatments that the state says you and your children must have. If as a parent you are concerned with the amount of mercury in a new flu vaccine, for example, you may not exercise any individual freedom to study up on risks of that prescription and make an informed choice to refuse.

How will the working poor, unemployed, and struggling middle class that is watching its real wages decline each year find the money to pay for this? Is the problem in the country an unwillingness to buy health insurance, or is it the lack of affordable health insurance in the first place?

This legislation is not progressive, it is regressive and makes the current state of affairs even worse. What's more it shifts the burden of solving the Medicare and Social Security funding problems off of corporations and wealthy individuals and puts it on the backs of the poor in a very Reagan-esque card trick. It will also allow politicians to claim 'problem solved' for the next four years and let them off the hook from coming up with real universal health care.

Please... Do not support HR 3962.

Brian Baird voted no.

@ Calling in Opposition-"The truth is the truth and persuading the ignorant or a jerk like you is irrelevant"

So eloquent, so articulate, so filled with rational discourse, and such a convincing advocate for your point of view!

Great!

Nick, thanks for posting this.

So, the final vote was 220-215, with one Republican vote (Cao of Louisiana).

Although both the Schrader website release about being "proud to have cast" and Insider got a little ahead of the game and announced the result before the actual vote, Insider was right to say "Not sure why all this space was wasted with a false alarm."

Here is my concern: The sort of bullying in the "trifecta" of blog posts implied that details didn't matter---if the 5th Dist. Congressman didn't say out loud WE MUST HAVE A PUBLIC OPTION, period, end of discussion, nothing else mattered. Sounds as if details are only for subversives or those who don't support what all good Democrats should support. That sort of attitude is what convinces many people there are better ways to spend their spare time than politics.

After all, how dare any Congressman have a thoughtful page on his website about health care principles?

http://schrader.house.gov/uploads/Schrader%20Principles%20on%20Health%20Reform1.pdf

And I don't recall anyone getting angry about the Stupak Amendment in the last several days---OK if it guaranteed a yes vote on a bill with the public option?

Individuals make decisions all the time about how much spare time they have and how they will use it. Is the intensity around "forcing Schrader off the fence" the sort of thing which will attract new volunteers to politics who aren't gung ho activists?

I have talked to the very nice people in Schrader's Salem office multiple times lately---but in a friendly way, not demanding he vote the way bloggers told him to vote. For that I earned the crack "then you must not care about the public option". Personal pique or was that supposed to win me over to the cause?

Time will tell if "the public option" is everything supporters hoped it would be.

Personally, I like that my Congressman released a statement on his own timetable---that shows he can't be easily bullied.

I expect the former Ways and Means co-chair in the legislature to care about costs. I hope that the lousy Medicare reimbursement rates for states like Oregon and Iowa get fixed. There was some discussion of that tonight before the vote.

And yes, I trust those who check the spelling of any public official's name before sending out a mass mailing more than those who do not. It shows they care about details. So I have less respect for groups like DFA and others that demanded calls be made to Curt when my Congressman is Kurt Schrader.

I've been pressured to conform to a certain view of politics many times, including one person yelling into each ear because I had the gall to vote on a particular side of a state central comm. resolution. Didn't change my mind, only made me wary of people who would behave like that.

The first campaigns I worked on were in the 1970s--yes, that makes me old. It also makes me someone who makes independent decisions, whether anyone else likes it or not. I will be a Schrader and Wyden supporter in the primary, in case anyone has ideas of challenging them because they don't tow the party line or some such.

This experience has reminded me why I dropped out of active party politics roughly 20 years ago.

Not that I would have said this 6 months ago, but this experience has given me more respect for Kari. Smart not to publish anything but the main line to a Congressman's office. In the debate with Carla, I sided with Kari.

There is an old proverb which comes in 2 versions--one from a famous politician and the other from grandparents many of us grew up with.

"You catch more flies with honey than..." a) "by hitting them over the head" b) " with vinegar".

Something to think about in future political battles.

And no, I don't know for a fact when Kurt decided to vote yes and what effect blogging had on him. My calls to his office were that I had questions about the Stupak Amendment but otherwise thought he should use his best judgement.

64 Democrats voted for the Stupak Amendment and it passed by 46 votes. http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/884

It will be interesting to see how the folks in those 64 districts (and others who might have contributed to them in the past) will react to that vote.

I was surprised that Brian Baird voted no. His website has an explanation, indicating that he'd like more modeling to be done on how the bill will affect insurance premiums and Medicare. He also said he may still vote for the conference report once he has more info.

For more, see: Baird press release

Ted commented: This legislation is not progressive, it is regressive and makes the current state of affairs even worse. What's more it shifts the burden of solving the Medicare and Social Security funding problems off of corporations and wealthy individuals and puts it on the backs of the poor in a very Reagan-esque card trick.

This legislation couldn't be more counter to the principles of individual freedom and limited government that Ronald Reagan espoused... and both I and the millions who believe similarly will thank you to never again associate his name with this 1900 page pile of legislative offal in any context.

LT - Yes we know you're "special" and have VERY important life lessons to import to us all. Some of us were out there working against this bill and the Stupak amendment, the fact you don't know about it should be an indication to you just how special you are.

Here's the roll call of shame that you can't run from. I haven't double-checked it, so there could be an error or two, so sue me. It's a pretty good picture of the rot in the Democratic Party who have given this stinking fraud of health care reform bill which is little more than an bailout for the corrupt insurance industry that trashes women's rights. (Oregon Democrats in bold, Washington Democrats in bold-italic)

Anti-Choice Elitist Democrats

1) When the rubber met the road, those who showed they look down on us as pawns who should be forced to put money in the industry's pockets than actually standing up for women's reproductive rights (i.e. No on Stupak, but Yes on the bill). All of the not-so-Progressive after all Coalition, and I think most of the DLC/New Democrats, as well as all of the Oregon Democrats and all of the Washington Democrats except Baird are in this group. The facts show these are the people who have to be "joiners" and part of of a group rather than have what it takes to be principled leaders. We all knew people like that in our life.

Abercrombie, Ackerman, Andrews, Arcuri, Baldwin, Bean, Becerra, Berkley, Berman, Bishop (NY), Blumenauer, Boswell, Brady (PA), Braley (IA), Brown, Corrine, Butterfield, Capps, Capuano, Carnahan, Carson (IN), Castor (FL), Chu, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn, Cohen, Connolly (VA), Conyers, Courtney, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (CA), Davis (IL), DeFazio, DeGette, Delahunt, DeLauro, Dicks, Dingell, Doggett, Edwards (MD), Ellison, Engel, Eshoo, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Foster, Frank (MA), Fudge, Garamendi, Giffords, Gonzalez, Grayson, Green-Al, Green-Gene, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hall (NY), Halvorson, Hare, Harman, Hastings (FL), Heinrich, Higgins, Himes, Hinchey, Hinojosa, Hirono, Hodes, Holt, Honda, Hoyer, Inslee, Israel, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson (GA), Johnson - E. B., Kagen, Kennedy, Kilpatrick (MI), Kilroy, Kind, Kirkpatrick (AZ), Klein (FL), Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), Lee (CA), Levin, Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Lofgren-Zoe, Lowey, Luján, Maffei, Maloney, Markey (MA), Matsui, McCarthy (NY), McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, McNerney, Meek (FL), Meeks (NY), Miller (NC), Miller-George, Mitchell, Moore (KS), Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Murphy (CT), Murphy, Patrick, Nadler (NY), Napolitano, Olver, Owens, Pallone, Pascrell, Pastor (AZ), Payne, Pelosi, Perlmutter, Peters, Pingree (ME), Polis (CO), Price (NC), Quigley, Rangel, Richardson, Rothman (NJ), Roybal-Allard, Ruppersberger, Rush, Sánchez-Linda T., Sanchez-Loretta, Sarbanes, Schakowsky, Schauer, Schiff, Schrader, Schwartz, Scott (GA), Scott (VA), Serrano, Sestak, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Sires, Slaughter, Smith (WA), Speier, Stark, Sutton, Thompson (CA), Thompson (MS), Tierney, Titus, Tonko, Towns, Tsongas, Van Hollen, Velázquez, Visclosky, Walz, Wasserman Schultz, Waters, Watson, Watt, Waxman, Weiner, Welch, Wexler, Woolsey, Wu, Yarmuth

2) The fearful who want a hierarchical authoritarian society, but who were utterly powerless to accomplish that without the overwhelming support of those odious representatives in the first group. (ie. Yes On Stupak, Yes on the Bill). This group actually includes a lot of supposedly "liberal" Democrats and some Blue Dogs:

Baca, Berry, Bishop (GA), Cardoza, Carney, Cooper, Costa, Costello, Cuellar, Dahlkemper, Davis (AL), Donnelly (IN), Doyle, Driehaus, Ellsworth, Etheridge, Hill, Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kildee, Langevin, Lipinski, Lynch, McIntyre, Michaud, Mollohan, Murtha, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Obey, Ortiz, Perriello, Pomeroy, Rahall, Reyes, Rodriguez,Ryan (OH), Salazar, Snyder, Space, Spratt, Stupak

3) Those who simply saw this as an opportunity to further the attack on women's reproductive rights because they knew how badly the odious people in the first group were absolutely unhinged at this point just wanting a win without any regard for doing the right thing (ie. Yes on Stupak, No on the Bill). This includes the rest of the Blue Dogs as far as I could tell on a quick check.

Altmire, Barrow, Boccieri Boren Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Griffith, Holden, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague

The Honor Roll

The few Democrats who, for now at least, actually stood up for women's reproductive rights and for working people against the majority who turned this into a welfare bill for the health insurance industry (ie. No on Stupak, No on the Bill). One of them actually is quite openly and vocally opposed to abortion but has consistently voted to protect women's reproductive rights including tonight against the Stupak amendment. (Know which one?). None of them are from the West Coast, which I think says a lot about the character deficiencies that define our party in our region, and only two are from the West.

Adler (NJ), Baird, Boucher, Boyd, Edwards (TX), Herseth Sandlin, Kissell, Kosmas, Kratovil, Kucinich, Markey (CO), Massa, McMahon, Minnick, Murphy (NY), Nye

torridjoe - just because it's subsidized doesn't make it any less welfare for the industry, which is the height of regressive because it is shifting money from all of us working people to some of the wealthiest private interests in the nation. And because of the Stupak amendment none of those subsidies are available to working and poor women who would choose to exercise their pro-choice rights by seeking a completely legal medical treatment. Calling BS on a minor technical point when the bigger reality is far more disgusting really is not very impressive.

And Carla, although you're a legend in your own mind, you have been nothing but a contemptible shill for a bill which is an affront to any notion of equity and a direct attack on women's reproductive rights. The only question is whether you were too stupid to have even been aware what was going on with the Stupak amendment over the last several days as you argued for this bill (which seems entirely likely) or if you knew about it and actually are just outright dishonest. Care to enlighten us on that?

The Honor Roll? Putting anyone in Congress on an Honor Roll is just stupid.

torridjoe - there is a big difference between Medicare Advantage, which is an OPTION available to Medicare recipients and that needs to be cut back anyway, and a mandate to buy private insurance as in this bill. My comment:

And because of the Stupak amendment none of those subsidies are available to working and poor women who would choose to exercise their pro-choice rights by seeking a completely legal medical treatment.

is exactly correct.

What I thought could happen was that we could make Pelosi hold this bill back and offer a stronger public option for "progressive" votes. But the people who have stolen the label "progressive" in the NW are incompetent cowards along with most of the activist base that I and everybody I know tried to be charitable and gave far more credit than they deserve.

Raw Story has a quote from Darcy Burner that I think drives home just how bad this really is and just how much there is something really, really wrong with the very souls of the Democrats claiming victory tonight:

The leader of the Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, Darcy Burner, released a video speaking out against the Stupak amendment. "Women who find they have cancer while they are pregnant won't get the choice of how to proceed, but those choices will instead be made by politicians in Washington, DC," Burner said. "The idea that we would throw women under the bus in the process of doing health care reform is completely unacceptable."

And the same Ezra Klein that ignorant jackasses here like to quote when it is convenient for them has noted this before the vote:

If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

And finally this on the HuffPo that In Pelosi's House, 64 Democrats Sell Women Out.

Right now few see how the Senate will reverse this, but that means now the only choice is to put the pressure on them. And that pressure has to focus on the mandate so that Senators at best, in their perception, feel they have to strip the abortion restriction to get the mandate. Of course, we have to put the pressure on to strip both because they won't give us a true publicly-owned option open to all but based on what we've seen here in the last few days, there's not a chance the likes of Carla, Kari, and the kind of people they are representative have the brains, talent, or even interest in doing that since, for them, it's just about the venal politics of winning.

The Honor Roll? Putting anyone in Congress on an Honor Roll is just stupid.

Bill, while I agree in a general sense with you, as you might recall one goes on the "Honor Roll" in school on a term-by-term basis (or at least in the schools I attended). In this case the Honor Roll is for this vote and this vote only. Because of just how bad this bill is, we should give credit anywhere it is due and only those 16 representatives out of the whole 435 deserve credit for doing the right thing on this pair of votes.

The idea of univeral health care does not work. Unless public opinion sways the vote the US will learn the hard way too.

People, flood your elected officials offices. We hold the most power in this game.

torridjoe - Re-reading your comment:

And the subsidies are still available--they just don't cover any abortions. Which is heinous and needs to be stripped, but your statement wasn't quite accurate.

in response to my comment:

And because of the Stupak amendment none of those subsidies are available to working and poor women who would choose to exercise their pro-choice rights by seeking a completely legal medical treatment.

you appear to have fallen into a cognitive trap the Stupak side was able to get Pelosi to shill for in her absolute desperation to win rather then put women's reproductive rights and the interests of poor and working people first. Because, remember, it is going to take a lot of work by the very activists who are seen as useful chumps by Pelosi and the Oregon delegation to get the Senate to block this.

The cognitive trap is this: This bill now has a mandate which means people must buy insurance from a private health insurance company. Anyone who wants to buy insurance that provides coverage that allows themselves or women in their family to exercise their full reproductive rights will either have to buy an unsubsidized policy outside the exchange. Or forgo the subsidy to buy such a policy inside the exchange. But they will have to do one or the other IF they want a policy that provides coverage that allows themselves or women in their family to exercise their full reproductive rights.

Now it is likely that no policies in the exchange will provide that coverage. And there goes all the advantages of the supposed indirect risk sharing in the exchange if there were two sets of policies because they would have to be segregated financially without playing some dubiously legal re-insurance games. In addition, Insurance companies will make the argument that not providing two different policies (and there appears no way they could offer an "abortion rider") is the only way they can control costs. By all indications, then, right now the choice I gave above doesn't actually include the exchange anyway, meaning people would simply have to go outside the exchange for a policy since they are mandated to buy insurance if they are not covered otherwise.

Furthermore, many of those whose employers provide them with health insurance that previously did allow a women to exercise her full reproductive rights will find their employers going to the exchange to get a better deal. So those people will either have to accept that they have lost this coverage, or buy an unsubsidized personal policy at a very high cost. If such policies are even available at all outside the exchange.

Finally, do you or anybody else really want to argue insurance companies will NOT take this as the opportunity the only way they can control costs is to not sell policies that provide coverage in or out of the exchange that allows a woman to exercise her full reproductive rights?

The problem is torridjoe, that your framing, while I think offered innocently enough so I don't want to criticize you for that, is exactly the framing Stupak and the rest used to hide the real import of the amendment for which Pelosi and the NW delegations (except Baird for now) accepted when they sold her souls for a win. It is based on not understanding the changes in the insurance system all of the pieces of the bill in total will cause unless something that appears quite unlikely happens in the Senate and survives conference given that the House and Stupak get another shot at it.

People waking up today should be feeling a nasty political hangover --- they were having fun last night being just a little irresponsible because they wanted to be part of the party, but now have to face the nauseating consequences of that. I'm all for tying one on every then and again, but only with a full understanding going in of the consequences and that I am making a choice that I'll have to answer for those to myself and the world coming out..

That's not the kind of responsible political behavior going into the party that we saw and see amongst a lot of the childish, irresponsible, egotistical partisans here who, or at least the few who have enough of a conscience to realize they made a big mistake for self-centered reasons, just start whining just as soon as people start to hold them morally and intellectually accountable for what they've done.

Jack, loved your comment, Posted by: Jack Roberts | Nov 7, 2009 9:55:39 PM

Does anyone have even a single shred of evidence that "intensive pressuring" affected Congressman Schrader's vote? ......... Be sure to read Pat Ryan's comment on the Historic: House Passes Health Care Reform topic.

"You're also inaccurate about how it would work; you CAN be covered by an exchange policy for an abortion--you have to purchase a rider with your own money to do so, however. Not that that's a useful option, but it's how it's set up. They CAN offer a rider; it just can't be paid with by federal subsidy. "

As someone pointed out in comments below a column in the Wash. Post, if the Catholic Church can segregate funds used for church work from federal funds meant for drug treatment, food banks etc. which have a general purpose rather than a religious purpose, why can't insurers or whoever figure out a way for a woman to buy an insurance policy from the exchange with her own money which provides abortion coverage?

One reporter today was saying the exchange is to be set up with 3 public options: low, middle, and high. The High option includes dental and vision but some people might not want to spend that much money or whatever.

I believe there is a way to solve this problem if people want to solve it. But it sounds like there are those who want to say that anyone who didn't vote for the Stupak Amendment is "pro-abortion" or some such rot. No way to negotiate with people like that.

I believe Stupak, the Catholic bishops, etc. may not realize they have encountered a hornet's nest.

There are going to be people all over the country asking tough questions of candidates. Here in Oregon, the fact that Bruun is not Erickson will not be enough---if he were in Congress now, would he support Stupak, why or why not? It wouldn't surprise me if Stupak, Obey, Kaptur and others got an earful when they went home. On another front, what have they done for needy families? Were they honest with the home folks to the point this was not a surprise?

<h2>Yes, he should be commended. It's a matter of conviction for him.</h2>