|
Post by wattsaman on Nov 12, 2009 13:13:08 GMT -5
We have two options here: 1) We can scrap this and give the extremist "progressive" movement what it wants - and never see health care reform in this country, or at least not for years - thus giving the far right what it wants; 2) We can take what we've managed to get so far and work on it, while people realize that - wonder of wonders - this isn't the Dark Portal to Communism that the rightards are pushing it as, thus giving us an opportunity to convince those who are simply misinformed.
Patience is a virtue.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Nov 12, 2009 18:07:02 GMT -5
I'll be blunt, the whole 'revolution' over 'evolution' angle being played is much more likely to kill healthcare for another generation than anything else. Exactly. That's just not how progress works. There are very rarely the kinds of revolutionary acts that lead to change, but that's how we're taught to look at the way "progress" gets made. Using a civil rights example, Rosa Parks didn't just decide one day out of the blue to not get up. She was the secretary of the NAACP for twelve years, she had a mentor who encouraged her to spread the movement to others, she had just come from organizing a seminar that lasted a week (I think) somewhere else. She also wasn't the first person to refuse to get up -- she was just the first face of the campaign. Bus boycotts had gone on for years prior to, winning limited concessions each time. The first black woman who refused to get up for a white man had done so two years earlier, but she was unmarried and pregnant, and not a good face for the cause. After Parks was arrested, the local black women's college made up flyers and papered the town with them, and the NAACP got busy spreading the word. Point is, she didn't do it by herself. We won't get perfect healthcare on the first try. That's just not how progress works. But it is important that we move forward.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 12, 2009 19:29:19 GMT -5
Also, there's almost half as much fearmongering in this thread as there is in Rapture Ready. That's not a good thing. This bill will NOT overturn Roe v. Wade. It's talking about how much the government will cover. It's technically still there. You can still get an abortion if you're mega-wealthy or really desperate. But you have to pay for it. No insurance company can cover you. It's the next worst thing to an outright ban- a practical ban to most people. It's still a constitutional right... sometimes. Except if a cent of public money goes to them. Then they are legally obliged not to cover some constitutional rights, because Obama got outmanouvered. Which means all of them.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Nov 12, 2009 19:36:17 GMT -5
Lt. Fred, out of pocket abortions aren't really that expensive, and they're certainly not limited in price to only the uberwealthy. An average abortion costs close to $500; but most of them are done at low cost clinics, which means the average cost is around $375 to $400. link Yes, there will always be some people for whom that's too much money. But for most people, it's not going to be a "practical ban" on abortion. Child birth actually costs far, far more.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 12, 2009 21:54:36 GMT -5
It's not like the uninsured have access to abortions right now anyways, this bill wouldn't restrict abortion access, just not provide it. Also, the bill does state that abortions are covered in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is at risk. Which is a lot more than the uninsured currently have.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Nov 15, 2009 21:04:05 GMT -5
We have two options here: 1) We can scrap this and give the extremist "progressive" movement what it wants - and never see health care reform in this country, or at least not for years - thus giving the far right what it wants; 2) We can take what we've managed to get so far and work on it, while people realize that - wonder of wonders - this isn't the Dark Portal to Communism that the rightards are pushing it as, thus giving us an opportunity to convince those who are simply misinformed. Patience is a virtue. I don't see it working that way. Usually settling for something half-assed causes a loss of momentum. In fact a messed up solution like this, especially the mandatory coverage part, risks causing more backlash than real progress. If patience is a virtue, we should keep working for what we really want, instead of taking the first bone thrown our way.
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Nov 16, 2009 5:42:17 GMT -5
We have two options here: 1) We can scrap this and give the extremist "progressive" movement what it wants - and never see health care reform in this country, or at least not for years - thus giving the far right what it wants; 2) We can take what we've managed to get so far and work on it, while people realize that - wonder of wonders - this isn't the Dark Portal to Communism that the rightards are pushing it as, thus giving us an opportunity to convince those who are simply misinformed. Patience is a virtue. I don't see it working that way. Usually settling for something half-assed causes a loss of momentum. In fact a messed up solution like this, especially the mandatory coverage part, risks causing more backlash than real progress. If patience is a virtue, we should keep working for what we really want, instead of taking the first bone thrown our way. You can see it however you want, history doesn't bare it out that way, however.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Nov 16, 2009 7:08:03 GMT -5
^^ Exactly; that's been the general path of progress for everything from voting rights to social security. There always is a "backlash", because some people are highly resistant to change, and that's too be expected. But it doesn't tend to weaken the overall movement, especially when people get a feel for how the new change really works.
|
|