Personally I oppose the Stupak amendment and direct everyone to check out the
GWU report on it. The short of it is that the researchers find that the amendment will ultimately lead to all insurance plans removing abortion coverage over time. Bart Stupak disagrees with their assessment.
As I discussed briefly above, the language that the Stupak amendment replaced would have required insurers who take federal subsidies to maintain separate accounts for money that will pay for abortions and money that won't; insurees would have to pay into the abortion fund out of their own pocket, while the subsidy would go to the non-abortion pool. This would satisfy the current requirement that no federal money be used to pay for abortions. Those pushing for the Stupak amendment say that this doesn't go far enough, criticizing the separate money pools as a false division; a dollar in one pool is equivalent to a dollar in the other, they say. But by this reasoning, federal law should also currently ban anyone who receives government assistance (Social Security disability payments, etc) from having an abortion-- the government has indirectly subsidized their abortion by allowing them enough money to purchase one. This is absurd on its face. Maintaining separate pools should be sufficient under current federal law.
As an update on the progress of the bill, the Senate has been debating whether to allow the bill to be debated for the past 8 hours or so. There will be a procedural vote at about 8pm eastern, requiring 60 votes, on whether to allow the bill to come to the floor for formal debate and amendment. With Sens. Lincoln and Landrieu announcing early this afternoon that they will vote in favor of debate, the Democrats should have either 60 or 61 votes for this motion (depending on whether Sen. Snowe joins, as she's still open to the bill with modifications). In short, today we debate whether to debate, tomorrow we debate.
Sens. Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, and Lieberman have all said that while they will vote to bring the bill up for debate, they would not vote for it in its current form. More specifically, there will be another procedural vote (again requiring 60 votes) on whether to end debate; these four senators have said that they will
not vote for that motion without changes. Despite this, the Republicans have made clear that they are treating tonight's vote as a vote in favor of the current health package, in toto. That is, even though a senator explicitly says that s/he is voting to begin debate only to allow a currently unacceptable bill to be amended, the GOP is going to attack them for supporting the health care bill as is. This provides further evidence that the Republicans are entirely engaged in a political battle rather than a policy debate.
It seems pretty unlikely at this point that there will be a bill with any form of public option, whether it have a trigger, an opt out clause, or otherwise. By my reckoning, here's what the swing votes demand in a bill:
- Ben Nelson, D-NE: Needs abortion language at least as strong as Stupak amendment. Probably opposes opt-out public option, might be open to triggers.
- Joe Lieberman, I-CT: No public option of any form. No opt-out, no triggers, nothing. Fundamentally opposed to any form of government insurance plan for any reason in the future. Insists that any public option will drive up the deficit, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
- Mary Landrieu, D-LA: Opposes the opt-out, wants a trigger clause for the public option. Says she's been working with Sen. Snowe on the same.
- Blanche Lincoln, D-AR: Came out against any form of the public option earlier today. Didn't seem to leave any wiggle room.
Olympia Snowe, R-ME: Opposes the opt-out public option, wants a trigger clause. Voted for the bill in the Finance Committee, still in play for final passage.
It looks like there are 56 Senators on board for something pretty close to the current Senate bill, with a few small modifications. The other 39 Republicans are firmly opposed to the bill, no matter how it's modified. All of the five swing votes above are pretty firm that their vote for cloture is identical to their vote for final passage-- they will filibuster if they intend to vote against passage. With two of them absolutely against any public option, it's dead. Harry Reid speculated that Lieberman will turn around, but I don't count on anything from Joe.
My reading is that the Senate bill will have to be significantly watered down to achieve 60 votes. The final bill will cost more and do less, all for the sake of one or two more votes. Even if there is no public option, the conservative rhetoric that the Democrats are creating a government takeover of health care will continue. In conclusion: I'm frustrated.
Author
