The Family Planning Fracas
There's been a lot of huffing and puffing this week about a provision to expand access to Medicaid-covered family planning services. First it was Republicans, who grew faint at the idea of voting for a stimulus package that contained such a provision (not that they rushed to vote for it without the provision). Then it was Democrats, who grew faint at the idea that their new liberal president would betray women, family planning, and the republic by removing the provision from the stimulus bill.
I decided to take a look at what the provision actually would have done and at what the deal is now that it isn't part of the stimulus bill that just passed the House.
The short version? Everyone needs to chill out. Republicans: The provision would have allowed states to cover family planning services--but not abortion--that they already cover for low-income women who don't otherwise qualify for Medicaid, just without first requiring states to obtain a waiver from the federal government. That's it. It wouldn't have permitted new services to be included under "family planning." It wouldn't have required states to cover anything or anyone that they didn't want to. It just would have allowed them to do what they're already doing without first going through the red tape of obtaining a waiver.
And Democrats: States can still provide the same family planning services to low-income women by applying for a waiver. Twenty-six of them already have waivers. The others--and this is important--wouldn't have been required to expand their Medicaid coverage even if the provision had gone through. The only thing the provision would have done is eliminate the waiver requirement for states that changed their minds and decided to start covering low-income women under Medicaid.
Now. The waiver process is burdensome--it can take as long as 24 months, states have to reapply after five years, and because the program was originally set up kind of as a demonstration project, states have to prove that the impact would be cost-neutral. We're 26 states in now and the evidence is that the program is more than cost-neutral. The CBO score of a similar provision back in 2007 was that it would save $400 million over ten years; a new CBO score of this provision adjusted that total to $700 million over the same time period. So the waiver hoop should be unnecessary now.
What's more, expanding Medicaid coverage to give low-income women access to family planning services before they get pregnant should be a no-brainer. When bright blue states like Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama already use waivers to provide family planning through Medicaid, you have to wonder what it was about the provision that made John Boehner hyperventilate.
In the end, this week's fight came down to symbolism. Republicans thought they could paint the stimulus bill as a gift to "the abortion industry" when in fact the provision changes virtually nothing about current law. And Democrats chose to interpret Obama's decision to remove the provision once it became a political football as a signal that he doesn't care about preventative health care or family planning or women. Everyone needs to chill out. And when this issue comes up again in the next few months, maybe we can rely on fact instead of fiction.
-
1
Democrats chose to interpret Obama's decision to remove the provision once it became a political football as a signal that he doesn't care about preventative health care or family planning or women.
-
I could have missed it, but I don't think anyone actually said that.
-
I heard Democrats complain that Obama sacrificed sound, sane policy to a nonsensical Boehner hissy fit, though, which your post indicates was correct.
-
More importantly: I thought it was "fracas"... -
2
Amy
.You know whats funny? Plenty of commenters here already posted about what the provision was really about. And our complaints aren't about President Obama not caring about women's health. Our complaints about him legitimizing the Republicans' complaints about the bill which you yourself acknowledged were baseless, by demanding that the provision be taken out. You just asserted that the provision would have saved states over $700 million dollars over 10 years and that in fact shows that it belonged in the bill because the states could then reallocate the money they would have been spending on waivers towards making sure they didn't have to cut jobs in the public sector. You know what would have been GREAT? If you could have put this post up last week when the story first broke and BEFORE the provision was taken out.
-
3
"It just would have allowed them to do what they're already doing without first going through the red tape of obtaining a waiver."
.
"The waiver process is burdensome--it can take as long as 24 months"
.
"The CBO score of a similar provision back in 2007 was that it would save $400 million over ten years; a new CBO score of this provision adjusted that total to $700 million over the same time period"
.
So your conclusion is...No big deal. IF your reporting is accurate then it really was a pathetic fold. -
4
Medicaid = SCAM
Pure and simple organized crime.
-
5
In the end, this week's fight came down to symbolism.
This whole argument, first to last, was nothing but symbolism. Most of the masses aren't reading up on the minutia like we swamplanders. They only get maybe two minutes of propaganda from their political pundit blowhard of choice. -
7
Amy Sullivan - Previous commentors have beaten me to the punch on this one.
Please be aware that you have just engaged in the classic 'false equivalence' argument. This is not a case of the Dems and GOP behaving badly in equal measure. This is a case of the GOP distorting the content of legislation to the point of lying and Democrats being disappointed that Obama felt it necessary to try to work with a group of people that have no interest in solving the problems this nation faces.
Perhaps you are aware of some women's health group that complained in the manner you described but that was not what bothered he vast majority of Progressives. If that is the case then I would suggest that you expand your reading list to include more serious Progressive voices.
You describe the petty political games of the GOP quite well. I am mystified as to why you felt the need to extend the pox to both houses when it was clear that there is only one diseased house.
-
8
great post. thanks for cutting through all the crap.
although, i think elvis is right -- it is fracas.
-
9
sgwhiteinfla - Does anybody want to guess what Mark Halperin's reaction to those ads will be?
"Oh noes! My glorious centrism! My glorious bipartisanship! How dare anybody argue with a Republican!"
Post your contest submissions below and remember that your words will be coming out of the mouth of an idiot so do not be concerned with correct spelling.
-
10
Let's see here.
.
"The CBO score of a similar provision back in 2007 was that it would save $400 million over ten years; a new CBO score of this provision adjusted that total to $700 million over the same time period."
.
Isn't $700 million one ten thousandth of the money the GOP handed out during their last month in office?
.
Ahyuh, ahyuh, by golly, we Republickers gots our priorities straight... -
11
Just a nit-picking issue, but since when have "Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama" been bright blue states?
.
Or did I miss the parties playing capture-the-flag when I wasn't looking? -
12
usesherbrain
.
I believe that was an attempt at snark. -
13
sgw
.
Hopefully it wasn't a miserable failure. I'm no pourmecoffee. -
14
Doh. Over my head twice.
-
15
But would that stimulate the economy, or would it only give money to rich doctors who would save a substantial amount?
More New Deal style infrastructure projects, please!
-
16
First it was Republicans, who grew faint at the idea of voting for a stimulus package that contained such a provision (not that they rushed to vote for it without the provision). Then it was Democrats, who grew faint at the idea that their new liberal president would betray women, family planning, and the republic by removing the provision from the stimulus bill.
Examples of each, please. In the article false equivalence is used to compare House Republicans to "some bloggers and pundits." I'm wondering if it is that hard to compare pundits to pundits and legislators to legislators.
-
17
terrapinian
.
The Rethugs are labeling it as "scare tactics". With people losing their jobs everyday I don't think they need to be scared any more than they already are. So to them I say, good luck with that! -
18
family planning services--but not abortion
.
Amy Amy Amy....
.
Why do you continue to pretend that opposition to family planning bears any relationship to opposition to abortion? By now you should know as well as anyone that what the Republicans object to is anyone enjoying non-marital sex (unless it refers to the man's behavior.)
.
To pretend that it has anything to do with concern over the unborn is to provide cover for the absolute worst hypocrisy. And I do believe our Savior had a few words for us on that subject..... -
19
Please be aware that you have just engaged in the classic 'false equivalence' argument.
.
Amy, you've already jumped the shark, you do realize that, don't you? Get out while you still have some pride. -
20
"Get out while you still have some pride."
.
I'm wondering if there is any connection between QH's new poisonality and the fact that Amy loves hula hoops.
.
Naw, couldn't be... -
21
Whoops.
.
The point I left in my post was the false analogy used (aka comparing apples and oranges). The false equivalence is correctly noted above (aka Repulicans dishonesty >> Democratic dishonesty). These are two separate issues.
.
Carry on... -
22
terrapinion, nice to see you back. (Unless you have been and I've been speedreading and missed your id.) I was just thinking of you yesterday.
-
23
Amy Sullivan - Seriously. I was wondering if you could respond to this problem in your post. Why is it equivalent for the GOP to behave in a petty, craven political fashion and for the Dems to express disappointment that the President is pandering to the petty, craven Republicans? In the end - and in your own analysis - the Republicans are still acting in a petty, craven manner. You should just say so and wait to bash Dems when they do something worth bashing.
-
24
Amy Sullivan how about we compare notes. I will name a Republican who grew faint over the family planning provision and you can name a Democrat that said Obama doesn't care about women's health issues.
.
I will go first
.
John Boehner
.
Your turn. -
25
Sorry Amy, you're wrong. The program was meant to spend 200 billion dollars on condoms and killing babies. I should know...I get my information from the news.
.
Day late. Dollar short.
- TIME Why it's time to give up the ghost on Bin Laden | http://su.pr/9KGpBa - 3 hours ago
- TIME See Facebook's secret code | http://su.pr/2C8sAt - 5 hours ago
- TIME See the top 10 movies of 2009 | http://su.pr/21qEh7 - 6 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- CNN Poll: Man Made Global Warming Takes a Hit
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- Why Wells Fargo isn't paying back TARP
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- U.S. Doesn't Know Where bin Laden Is; Time to Let Go
- Suspect Headley: Pakistani Terrorist Group Going Global?
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
Quotes of the Day »
RSS