Archive for March 15th, 2010

Why is Stupak surprised that his amendment was trashed ?

March 15, 2010

Back in November, pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak scored what he thought was a victory and the House passed an amendment to its ObamaCare bill limiting the use of tax-payer funds for abortions.

Stupak’s language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies.

Abortion-rights supporters called it a “de facto” abortion ban and mounted an intense but unsuccessful lobbying campaign against it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/66969-senior-dem-confident-stupak-amendment-will-be-stripped

* * * * *

But, immediately after the vote, pro-choice Dems expressed confidence that “controversial language on abortion would be stripped from a final healthcare bill” via legislative maneuvering.

Excerpted from The Hill: Senior Democrat is ‘confident’ that Stupak amendment will be stripped, 11/09/09

A House Democratic leader said Monday she’s “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.

“It was extremely painful for me to feel compelled to vote for a bill that contained that kind of restriction on a woman’s ability to make her own reproductive choices,” Wasserman Schultz said.

“We’re all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that’s the case.”

.

* * * * *
Now, House Dem leadership has told Stupak and his pro-life buddies to take a hike …
Pelosi Calls Stupak’s Bluff on Abortion:

Anti-choice zealot Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) overplayed his hand. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced today that the House Democrats will move forward without a deal on abortion coverage.

Why are they finally telling Stupak to pound sand after endless rounds of negotiations? First off, Pelosi had the strategic advantage of having very little to offer Stupak and his shadowy band of anti-choice Democrats. Second, Stupak’s alleged coalition is looking more like a paper tiger every day.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/19045

* * * * *

And, in the coup de grace, Stupak alledges that Rep. Henry Waxman bluntly told him that liberal Dems want the government to fund abortions.  So there, Bart !
Bart Stupak — the pro-life Democrat leading the charge in the House against passage of the Senate health insurance reform bill — said Friday that Henry Waxman — a key House committee chairman —  told him that Democrats want abortions to be paid by a federally-funded nationalized health insurance system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yDtPRSBKyM
.
* * * * *
My questions:
(1) Why is Stupak acting surprised and dismayed by the outcome ?
.
(2) Will Stupak himself cave and vote ‘yes’ ?

My bet: yes …

* * * * *

BTW: Catholic Bishops are OK with the House language, but oppose the Senate language.

“U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has said the Senate-passed health care bill fails our moral criteria and must be changed.

The abortion funding problems in the Senate Bill extend well beyond the premium division scheme.

click for details:
http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2010/03/usccb-clarifies-politico-comments-still.html

Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance | 2 Comments »

Will “swing” Congressmen vote their constituents’ will … or the party bosses’ ?

March 15, 2010

The Tarrance Group conducted polling for the districts of eleven Democrats thought to be potential flippers on the final vote on health care reform.

Below are the results for the main question, “do you favor or oppose the health care reform legislation being proposed by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress” , along with the members’ votes on the health care bill the first time around.

In summary, majorities oppose the bill in every district except one (NY-13), most of the opposers strongly oppose the bill.

  • AZ-8 (Giffords, yea): 35% favor, 52% oppose, 46% strongly oppose;
  • CO-4 (Markey, nay): 33% favor, 58% oppose, 51% strongly oppose;
  • IN-9 (Hill, yea): 31% favor, 52% oppose, 44% strongly oppose;
  • NJ-3 (Adler, nay): 34% favor, 57% oppose, 46% strongly oppose;
  • OH-1 (Driehaus, yea): 39% favor, 54% oppose, 48% strongly oppose;
  • OH-16 (Boccieri, nay): 38% favor, 51% oppose, 46% strongly oppose;
  • NV-3 (Titus, yea): 40% favor, 52% oppose, 44% strongly oppose;
  • NY-13 (McMahon, nay): 40% favor, 46% oppose, 37% strongly oppose;
  • NY-24 (Arcuri, yea): 32% favor, 53% oppose, 47% strongly oppose;
  • PA-4 (Altmire, nay): 30% favor, 58% oppose, 47% strongly oppose;
  • PA-10 (Carney, yea): 28% favor, 58% oppose, 47% strongly oppose.

image 

http://www.naw.org/files/TargetCDHealthCareStudyToplines.pdf

Sourced from RCP: How Much Damage Could HC Inflict on Dems?, Mar 10, 2010
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/03/10/how-much-damage-could-hc-inflict-on-dems/

Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance, Polls & Surveys | Leave a Comment »

Why we make mistakes …

March 15, 2010

In this and a couple of subsequent posts, i’ll be excerpting  the 13 reasons from:

Why We Make Mistakes, Joseph T. Hallinanm, Broadway Books 2009

Today, the first 4 reasons on the list

* * * * * *

When it comes to making mistakes, the cause is overwhelmingly attributed to human error.

Whether it’s airplane crashes (70 percent), car crashes (90 percent), or workplace accidents (90 percent), humans are usually to blame.

However, in many cases, our mistakes are not entirely our fault. All of us are afflicted with certain systemic biases in the way we see, remember, and perceive the world around us, and these biases make us prone to commit certain types of errors.

The errors we make can be explained through 13 lessons:

1. We look but don’t always see.

When it comes to human error, this kind of mistake is so common that researchers have given it its own nickname: “a looked but didn’t see” error. When we look at something — or at someone — we think we see all there is to see. But we don’t. Often times, we miss important details, some small and some larger.

2. We all search for meaning.

A recent poll of 3,000 people found that one-fourth of them couldn’t remember their own phone numbers, and two-thirds couldn’t recall the birthdays of more than three friends or family members.

When it comes to hiding places, people also mistakenly believe that the more unusual a hiding place is, the more memorable it will be. However, the opposite is actually true: Unusualness actually makes a hiding place more forgettable. The key to a good hiding place is making a quick connection between the thing being hidden and the place in which it is hidden.

The same holds for passwords.  While associated meanings may make them easier to hack, they’re certainly more memorable if they have personal meaning.

3. We connect the dots (prematurely).

The moment we experience a flicker of recognition, the brain does something similar to connecting the dots that we didn’t know it was connecting. These types of subtle connections are very powerful — and very common. 

Once we “see” a pattern developing we hurry it to its logical conclusion — sometimes erroneously — regardless of contrary indicators that may surface.

4. We wear rose-colored glasses.

Hindsight isn’t 20/20.

In remembering our own actions, we all tend to wear rose-colored glasses. Without intentionally trying to distort the record, we are prone to recalling our own words and deeds ina light that is more favorable than an objective record would show.

In fact, the tendency to see and remember in self-serving ways is so ingrained in us — and so subtle — that we often have no idea that we’re doing it.

* * * * *

Next up: The myth of multi-tasking …

Posted in Decision-making, Problem solving, Psychology | Leave a Comment »

"The special deals will be taken out !" … just kidding.

March 15, 2010

Nobody should be surprised by this move …

President Barack Obama appears ready to reverse his position and allow unpopular deal-sweetening measures in the hopes of finding Democratic support for legislation.

To clinch support, Obama is backing away from his insistence that senators purge the legislation of a number of lawmakers’ special deals.

Taking a new position, the White House will only object to state-specific arrangements, such as an increase in Medicaid funding for Nebraska, ridiculed as the “Cornhusker Kickback.”  That’s being extended to all states.

The new rule: provisions that could — under prescripted circumstances affect more than one state are OK.

That means deals sought by senators from Montana and Connecticut would be fine — even though last week they were singled out as items Obama wanted removed.

There was resistance, however, from two committee chairman, Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and the White House has apparently backed down.

Excerpted from AP: Obama heads to Ohio looking for health care votes, Mar 15, 2010 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100315/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance | Leave a Comment »