Disrespecting the Base
The fringe crazies at the tea party got a lot of attention. But one of the most noteworthy things about the protest was the heavy representation of anti-abortion activists who don’t like Obama’s health plan because it will offer federal subsidies for abortion. That’s not my view, but obviously there’s a substantial minority of Americans who want to see abortion banned so it’s natural that there would be opposition to this subsidized abortion scheme. Except for the fact that the health reform plans in congress wouldn’t actually do this. The anti-abortion side, in other words, already won this argument. Except nobody told them.
Tactically, that makes sense. The anti-abortion movement is one of the largest and most robust social movements in the United States. If you want to beat something, enlisting that movement’s passion and organization will be very helpful. So the leaders of the conservative movement are happy to willfully deceive their followers on this point, the better to mobilize them. It’s smart, but it’s ugly and it’s extremely disrespectful. It’s also, in strict anti-abortion terms, incredibly counterproductive. The anti-abortion side won this debate because many Democrats wanted to do health reform without feeling their wrath. But if the wrath continues even when you do what they want, then there’s very little incentive to make concessions in the future. Which only furthers one sense that the conservative elite sees the anti-abortion movement as something to be cynically manipulated rather than a cause to be advanced.
87 Responses to “Disrespecting the Base”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
So who will tell them?
September 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“But if the wrath continues even when you do what they want, then there’s very little incentive to make concessions in the future”
And yet the Democrats continue to do so. Just like with denying undocumented immigrants care – which was already done – and after YouLie Wilson, I guess they put their legislative language in ALL CAPS.
Apparently they believe that the the swine flu checks your citizenship papers before infecting you.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Abortion IS TOO healthcare reform!!
No wait, I got that wrong. Murder IS TOO healthcare reform! Hm, that doesn’t seem right either.
That guy needs to get someone to copy-edit his sign.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
This is explained in “What’s the matter with Kansas” – get an issue that really riles people up but don’t ever resolve it. The Republican leadership sporadically offers some anti-abortion legislation, but nothing close to making it illegal (an amendment to the Constitution) – and for good reason.
I sometimes feel the Dems have their own issues like this…
September 13th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
It’s just possible that the anti-abortion folks are in on the joke. Maybe they want more than just that abortion not be funded by any future plan, and they allow the confusion toward that end. Maybe? You think?
September 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Okay I’m confused about this. If we have a healthcare exchange where people can buy private insurance with a subsidy, couldn’t they buy insurance that covers abortion? I mean, premiums paid into this specific private plan would pay for abortion, and those premiums would come from the tax payers.
Unless it’s the case that no plans on the health exchange could cover abortions, but that would actually be pretty awful, wouldn’t it? Or would it just be the case for subsidized plans?
What happens if someone needs a medically necessary abortion? Would they have to pay for that themselves?
September 13th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I hope Matt remembered to include his tag at the end of this post.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
LMAO @ my own ignorance of HTML, while trying to make an HTML joke. The above should have read “his /concerntroll tag,” but with brackets around it as if representing an HTML tag. Instead, I ended up providing the tag for him.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Don’t you think it just a bit ingenuous to complain that any group of Americans don’t know what is in a yet to be agreed upon health care reform bill?
I’m not criticizing the way Obama has handled this (after all any legislation involving so many moving parts is not going to be readily explicable) but that very complexity means that there is probably no one person who knows all the parts.
And of course all the talk of arcane legislative action only raises more questions.
To your larger point of course the opposition will use every doubt and insinuation to strengthen their position.
But then Obama has not exactly been a paragon of straight shooting either.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Considering the actual bill to be considered hasn’t been written yet, making one’s positions known isn’t a waste of time. It would seem Matt isn’t smarter than a pro-lifer after all.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
To what extent have the anti-abortion protestors against the Healthcare reform plan been duped, and to what extent are they trying to dupe us about their own motives?
Is it possible that they oppose the currently constituted health care reform plan for other reasons, but they don’t believe that their real motives are as popular as anti-abortionism (not that anti-abortionism is an overwhelmingly popular cause, but anyway)? (e.g., “this plan will provide health care to those who really deserve to be sick,” or something of the sort.)
September 13th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Re: And yet the Democrats continue to do so. Just like with denying undocumented immigrants care – which was already done
???
Huh? How have undocumented immigrants been denied care? EMTLA contains no exceptions for nationality that I know of. Illegal aliens get the same expensive and inefficient ER same care that our uninsured do.
Re: What happens if someone needs a medically necessary abortion? Would they have to pay for that themselves?
The Hyde Amendment allows federal funding for medically necessary abortions. Meanwhile I se no reason wy elective aorions sould be a covered benefit any more than liposuction is.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I found the conservative leaders who were misleading their followers on this issue:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/
Personally I believe reproductive services should be covered. Lying and saying they’re not isn’t going to get the pro-lifers to take Obama’s word for it when both independent factcheckers as well as their social conservative outlets are actually in agreement about Obama’s misleading rhetoric on the subject.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
So you wouldn’t have any problem if all the teabaggers showed up yesterday with signs saying ‘Obama wants to march all Republicans off to death camps! Stop Obamacare!’? And would consider it a completely genuine and fair way to criticize the President (and his bill), right?
I mean, the bill hasn’t been written yet (your words), and that theory has been bounced around already in Washington more than once(albeit amongst the extreme right-wing), so it COULD technically be in the bill when it’s released, right?
September 13th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Isn’t the anti-abortion movement itself just a cynical manipulation?
My understanding is that abortion wasn’t a big issue for evangelical churches until the late 70s and early 80s. Some of the churches were even pro-choice, at least insofar as they thought it would hold down the population of blacks and other people they didn’t like and reduce miscegenation.
They flipped their position and started beating the drum on the issue in order to increase their political power. It worked.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
It’s technically true that people will be able to buy insurance that covers abortion—87% of insurance plans do. And they may use subsidies to do this, or else we would actually take away coverage already offered.
But, pardon the expression, it’s retarded to waste government resources making sure no dollar that was ever technically in the government coffers goes to pay for abortion. If a government employee, for instance, receives a paycheck, and spends that on abortion, is that “taxpayer-funded abortion”? No, we respect that the money becomes hers when we pay it. Same with health care subsidies, I’d say.
It’s insane that abortion gets this special paranoid treatment. I don’t get a refund for my share of the Iraq War. It just goes to show that Matt’s right—the anti-choicers are a loved group for conservatives because their fear of sexuality is all-consuming, and logic nor facts cannot penetrate.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
DS,
You are correct that the Southern Baptist Convention supported abortion rights in the ’60s. Simply going to show yet again that the problem with low-church Protestantism in general is that any yahoo preacher with a congregation can say anything he chooses. However, it is a matter of record that apostolic Christianity, as represented by the Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental and Anglican communions, as well as the more theologically conservative branches of Judaism have opposed abortion consistenly since the beginning, as codified in the Didache and in many other texts from the first and second centuries.
In regard to this post in general, mirabile dictu, indeed. Mr. Yglesias actually has a post for once that is intellectually and morally correct. It is a standing shame how the anti-abortion movement has prostituted itself to the Republican Party, which doesn’t really give a tinker’s d*mn about ending abortion. The fact is that Mr. Obama, despite his personal views on abortion which I find abhorrent, has been nice and made sure that abortion will not be funded by the federal health insurance bills. Personally, I thank him for that. He didn’t have to do it, and I’m sure he didn’t want to, but he did as a gesture of across-the-aisle generosity. (Probably also in part to get the support of the Catholic Bishops and other people who, unlike the pro-life Republican politicians, are actually serious about ending abortion).
Mr. Yglesias is, however, incorrect that the pro-life movement in America is strong. In reality, to paraphrase the late and unlamented Mao-Tse-Tung, support for the culture of life in America is a mile wide and an inch deep. This is proven by the fact that a reasonably moderate anti-abortion bill could not even pass in South Dakota.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
The populist portion of their platform is rhetorical. The major concerns are disrupting subsidies, levying taxes, and regulation.
On the other hand, the anti-abortion people may be using situations where they are being used themselves to further their pet cause.
If you recall that video of the woman screaming “Heil Hitler” at the Jewish man that was decrying the commercial exploitation of veterans and promoting public health care, she went into a nonsensical tirade about her taxes paying for abortions. That was weeks ago. If they really wanted to know they would, but not believing that the bill doesn’t touch on their cause allows them to continue railing against abortion while the topic under consideration carefully avoided it.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Re: The Hyde Amendment allows federal funding for medically necessary abortions. Meanwhile I se no reason wy elective aorions sould be a covered benefit any more than liposuction is.
As usual, JonF is correct.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“there’s very little incentive to make concessions in the future.”
Except that the Dems start with concessions, continue with concessions, and lose anyway.
September 13th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
It’d help if you guys recognized that the key to the pro-life movement isn’t evangelicals, it’s Catholics.
It’d also help if you didn’t feel so compelled to dis people of faith every time you talk about it, e.g., “retarded.” Damned few parents of Down syndrom kids would pardon the expression.
And yet, Amanda’s point is ALMOST useful: “But, pardon the expression, it’s retarded to waste government resources making sure no dollar that was ever technically in the government coffers goes to pay for abortion. If a government employee, for instance, receives a paycheck, and spends that on abortion, is that “taxpayer-funded abortion”? No, we respect that the money becomes hers when we pay it. Same with health care subsidies, I’d say.”
How about something more sympathetic to WHY people are pro-life: “The truth is, any health care reform that cuts costs will subsidize abortion, because the only way to provide low cost, high quality insurance to those who cannot now afford it is to subsidize private insurance plans that do cover abortions, precisely because no Federal dollars may be spent on abortion except in emergency cases. So pro-life people have to recognize the truth: when people spend their own money to choose abortion, that’s their business. It’s protected by the Constitution. And it’s part of health care. But you know what ELSE is their business, protected by the Constitution — and part of health care reform? Caring for Down syndrome kids, whose parents find it difficult if not impossible to get private insurance. We shouldn’t be putting parents in that kind of impossible situation, which is why we need reform.”
There — fixed it for ya.
September 13th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
This is an I’ll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine situation. The pro-lifers agree to help out the Republicans and come out in favor of torture and the Iraq war and against health care reform, providing warm bodies and dollars for the cause. In exchange, the Republicans promise to remain a pro-life party, helping out its cause with right-wing judges and support of anti-abortion laws.
September 13th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
“But if the wrath continues even when you do what they want, then there’s very little incentive to make concessions in the future.”
As the kids like to say, lolz!
Just ask the geniuses at NBC, the Washington Post, or the New York Times if they agree with that.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
It’s technically true that people will be able to buy insurance that covers abortion—87% of insurance plans do.
It occurs to me that this means the public option crowding out private insurance would actually be an improvement for the pro-life cause.
I suppose there are some pro-lifers who hold onto hope that Roe v. Wade will be overturned, and therefore telling their fellow pro-lifers whatever lies are necessary to support the GOP is worth it in the end.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Don’t you think it just a bit ingenuous to complain that any group of Americans don’t know what is in a yet to be agreed upon health care reform bill?
Not when someone claims “x will be covered in the health care bill!!!” and it has been explicitly banned from being covered in all of the existing versions of the bill, such as the right has claimed with undocumented immigrants and abortion. If all of the existing versions of the bill ban something, it’s a pretty good bet that any future approved bill.
But then again, it’s really hard to be disingenuous when dealing with people who claim with all seriousness that the government is out to kill your grandmother.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Obama, out of the kindness of his heart, has listened to republican concerns and decided to take out passages in the bill that would have dissolved the insurance companies to replace them with single payer health care. He then eliminated the death panels that were going to be put in place. He then banned illegal immigrants from taking advantage of public subsidies and finally ordered that no public funds be used to pay for abortion. So you guys won that argument. With all that Obama has shown himself willing to compromise on, it seems that strict regulation of the insurance companies, a public option, and subsidies for lower-middle-income families to ensure affordability is the logical end point. Good job, conservatives!
September 13th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I can’t help but make a few corrections, as a special needs mom and as a Jew:
Re: retarded: there are at least a dozen causes of mental retardation/cognitive disability besides Down Syndrome (I always feel compelled to point this out when I see people using DS to mean “all retardation”); in fact, Fragile X Syndrome is the leading cause. AFAIK, most of the other causes can not be determined before birth. And you can aquire cognitive disability after birth, through lead poisoning.
Re: Orthodox Judaism and abortion (see Hector @6:52): there is no single authority in Judaism, so there is never one single answer to any question. But almost all Orthodox Jews approve of medically necessary abortion. The life of the mother, who is understood to be an integral part of a family and a community, is valued more highly than the life of the fetus, since her loss would rip apart those webs of relationships.
It’s also worth noting that in tradition Judaism, mourning rituals for babies under one month old are abbreviated; it is understood that their place in the family and community were not yet fully formed. Obviously, this evolved in the days of high infant mortality, and speaks to the very practical, pragmatic side of Judaism.
September 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
However, it is a matter of record that apostolic Christianity, as represented by the Catholic ..
St Augustine believed the human was ‘ensouled’ after birth. Thomas Aquinas, when pestered about this, moved it back to viability, consistent with our current laws.
Life at conception is illogical since that would mean God performs more deaths than men do. Since that can’t be the case, the current position taken by the mental midget authoritarians in the Vatican is wrong.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
THE CU-DE-SAC OF VALUE
(THE QUESTION)
Now, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard the International Business Editor in London for the Telegraph who has been on the news beat of politics and economics for (25) Twenty-Five year, about the globe, asked a very interesting question about one of the countries of the (BRIC) Brazil, The Russian Federation, India, and The Peoples Republic of China. And, the Country was the later The Peoples Republic of China, and that question was (Where is the gold to come from?). And what Ambrose was talking about is that the (BRIC) has decided to base their collective currencies on other than the American Empires printing press Dollars. That the (BRIC), has decided that International Currencies should be based upon a system where by each currencies value would be determined by a scale of one worth against another’s, and that scale would be based upon multiple parts; (Oil Currency, Gold Currency, Food Production Currency, Minerals Currency, Production Currency), and not upon the amount of Dollars printed by one Reserve System, based upon an unknown value, being printed in an endless supply.
(More Can Be Less/ Less Can Be More)
Now, what Ambrose should have asked is not were is the Gold going to come from, the question should have been were does the value of the Gold come from, and its value come from the fact that it is of demand, by many for many reasons, beyond its desire by women, it has industrial applications, as does oil, food, and minerals. So, what Ambrose failed to understand was it is not the Gold itself that has value, it is just a stone, a rock, a piece of the world upon which we live, Gold has only the value that we say it has no more, and no less. So, if China were to somehow obtain more and more and more and more Gold it would be worth less, and less, and less, and, less. Therefore, if China gathers together as much Gold as it can, it means there is less of it for others who desire it or need it in its production of items it needs and that drives the value of Gold up, it is call the law of supply and demand. More Dollars means less value, Less Gold mean More value.
(Value of Quid per Quo)
What the (BRIC) is saying to the rest of the worlds Community of Nations is that the World Currency must be based upon the Laws of Supply and Demand, and not upon simply filling the need for more Dollars by printing them on a mass production, you need Dollars no problem we will print some more up for you in a jiffy. World Currency values must now be weighted on a scale of what value we place upon Gold Currency, Oil Currency, Food Currency, Minerals Currency, and Production Currency. Supply and Demand, do you place more value upon a vehicle that is manufacture in Japan or Detroit (Production Currency), do you place more value upon a Computer System manufactured in the American Empire or one manufactured in China. Where is Oil gotten from the depths of the Ocean, from off of Mississippi, or from the Caspian Sea Basin as reduced cost (Oil Currency)? Where does one get Nickel if you don’t have any Canada, but in trade for what printing press Dollars, or Production Currency, Gold Currency, Mineral Currency what is the Quid per Quo, what is the (VALUE!)
Where Does The Value Come From Ambrose?
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
September 13th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Gee, I seem to remember everybody and their brother promising up and down that if we only got 60 votes, we’d see EFCA. Does anyone even believe that EFCA-Lite (Sans Card Check)can pass?
Medicare for all, card check, Banning DADT. amazing how these ideas and policies are called “vital” and “essential” come election time, but become “distractions”, “counterproductive” and “Not all that important” when it comes time.
In other words, Matt’s a fucking hypocrite.
September 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Wow, that was utterly irrelevant.
Except to the extent that the purpose of politics is to allow soullite to proclaim his superiority over mere mortals.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
If the public option and private exchange are modeled on the FEHB, under current rules, no federal money for new enrollees could be spent on abortions (other than the usual caveats – life, health, rape, incest.)
There is proposed legislation to alter those rules, but it isn’t certain to pass – likely, but not certain.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Considering i had to endure some US prophaganda film claiming abortion clinics are all owned by the mafia in my (taxpayer funded and forced opon me in public school) catholic religious education, id say the anti abortion base is pretty much catholic.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Matt: “So the leaders of the conservative movement are happy to willfully deceive their followers on this point, the better to mobilize them.”
Then the question is, who else do the GOPers have? For better or worse, this is their base. It’s all they have.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Re: Orthodox Judaism and abortion (see Hector @6:52): there is no single authority in Judaism, so there is never one single answer to any question. But almost all Orthodox Jews approve of medically necessary abortion. The life of the mother, who is understood to be an integral part of a family and a community, is valued more highly than the life of the fetus, since her loss would rip apart those webs of relationships.
Something of a cop out, don’t you think? I also approve of medically necessarily abortions, as do most anti-abortion people, and I think the Jewish position on this is correct. That said, the majority of abortions in America are not performed for medical reasons, so the health exception does not get you anywhere near the current abortion licence in America.
RE: St Augustine believed the human was ‘ensouled’ after birth. Thomas Aquinas, when pestered about this, moved it back to viability, consistent with our current laws.
Oh, not this again. First of all, Thomas Aquinas believed that ensoulment took place at 40 days after conception, not at ‘viability’. St. Augustine, going with the beliefs of his time, held that ensoulment (or as it were, ‘vivification’) started between 30 and 90 days after conception, but he acknowledged that he wasn’t sure. They were wrong, but not gonna hold that against them. That said, both of them- and _all_ Christian thinkere, orthodox and heretical, of all confessions, up until the mid 20th century- held that abortion was a grave sin, whether or not it was homicide beginning from conception.
Let’s take a look at what some texts characteristic of the early church say about abortion:
“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder…..You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . .
Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
“And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 100]).
“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Tertullian’s Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).
“Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not” (Basil the Great, First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).
“Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed” (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).
Now none of this necessarily means that the church fathers were _right_ on the general immorality of abortion. I think they were right for the most part, though, but even I would make exception for medical necessity. It does, however, mean that the argument from tradition is sound. The church has always opposed abortion, consistently, since the time of Christ, and any attempt to deny this is simply false. If you can cite a single church authority who ever said that abortion was permissible (except in cases of medical necessity) then please do.
September 14th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Така тема повинна всіх хвилювати. Не лише одних євреїв.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:05 am
On behalf of all of humanity, I’d like to offer our sincerest apologies for not being perfect, like Soullite.
(I should probably keep the preceding sentence in a text file and paste it into every comment thread.)
(Sanctimonious prig.)
September 14th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Pray tell, Hector, since they were wrong, when does ensoulment actually occur?
September 14th, 2009 at 7:35 am
“How about something more sympathetic to WHY people are pro-life:”
Hey, I’m all for that. I just don’t see what it has to do with MY’s post or this discussion, which is about radical anti-choicers.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Re: Life at conception is illogical since that would mean God performs more deaths than men do.
Zygotes are certainly alive. So of course are sperm and egg. The real question is when do we acknowledge that personhood exists? My own preferrence on this is to acknwoledge that a human person exists when a functioning brain exists– we generally define death when the brain ceases to function (among other criteria) so it seems reasonable to see human personhood when a brain begins to work.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:20 am
“I just don’t see what it has to do with MY’s post or this discussion, which is about radical anti-choicers.”
Then perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills.
MY’s post insists on something that is not strictly true, that health insurance reform would not subsidize abortion. Evidently you sorta skipped over the part where sensible folks (like Amanda) acknowledged that, because private insurance policies that cover abortion would take advantage of the exchanges, in fact this particular reform WOULD subsidize abortions.
She then made the valid point that, after all, it’s the individual’s money that buys the plan, so it’s nobody’s business that it would cover an abortion. ‘Course, she did this by bringing up a key issue in a singularly nasty way (which you evidently also missed: that reading comprehension thing, her “pardon the expression, it’s retarded to…”).
Since this seems like the first you’ve heard of it, Down Syndrome (among other conditions) is often detected before birth, and many mothers (even the well-off, like opera singer Denyce Graves, who had been told she would never have children) whose babies are diagnosed with Down Syndrome are advised to abort the child. (In Graves’ case, she refused, and the baby is fine.) A significant factor in that advice is the cost of caring for a Down Syndrome baby throughout his or her life, which is financial as well as emotional.
So it’s not exactly the smartest way to put the case, to say “it is retarded” that pro-life folks are sensitive to schemes which would subsidize abortion with their tax dollars. It’s also not real smart to pretend that this is not so, when legislation that would provide a public option/exchange of private plans WOULD necessarily bring down the cost of private insurance policies that cover abortion, because they would participate in the same exchanges. Hell, that’’s their PURPOSE, to drive down the cost for care — ALL care covered by the private plans.
Either you exclude all private plans that cover abortion (which would wreck reform), or you exclude abortion itself as a procedure (I dunno how, but I suppose it’s possible), or, as Amanda argues, you tell pro-life people to stick it — on top of MYs mild deception, to deny what’s true.
I just suggested that maybe it would be smarter to tell the truth: yeah, health insurance reform would make abortions cheaper. But you know what? It’d also make it easier for the parents of Down Syndrome kids to provide care for ‘em.
‘Course, we could keep on with the deceptive, dismissive attempt to persuade that has characterized Democratic framing of these issues all summer. Since the bad guys have gained 30+ points on us since May, it seems like it might be a good time to assess how that’s working out.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:26 am
The exchanges aren’t subsidized. They’re just a mechanism for pooling market-rate insurance policies. Nothing covered by a policy purchased through the exchange would be paid for with tax dollars.
The word “subsidized” has an actual definition. It’s not a way to refer to the existence of any and all vague connection with the government.
So, no, Matt has not stated anything that isn’t true.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Sorry Amanda, I just can’t pardon the expression “it’s retarded.” There is no room any where for the word retarded except in medical definitions. Using it the way you did just demeans people with special needs and is not acceptable.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Joe from Lowell skips over making it easier to get insurance for Down Syndrome kids, and insists that up is down, instead: exchanges would be a government policy that would make abortions cheaper, but that’s not a “subsidy”, cuz that has a precise meaning.
Riiiight. Cuz being clueless, pedantic and snotty is JUST what we need to make this easier for Blue Dogs to support.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Much like the fact that the national highway system makes it cheaper for abortion clinics to have necessary goods and equipment delivered, reducing their cost, and thus having their services subsidized by the government!
September 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am
“Which only furthers one(’s) sense that the conservative elite sees the anti-abortion movement as something to be cynically manipulated rather than a cause to be advanced.”
Uh…, let me tell you, this one’s sense that the conservative elite sees everything in the universe as something to be cynically manipulated left the station and arrived at its destination many years ago. It couldn’t possbily be furthered.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I’m not skipping anything. I corrected your inaccurate statement.
Behind your huffing and puffing, you are forced to acknowledge that I’m right. No taxpayer money would go to abortions. They would not be subsidized. It is – what’s that short, straight-forward little word? – oh, right, it is a lie to say otherwise.
You can concern troll about Blue Dogs all you want, but I’m going to call you out when you push lies.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Re: There is no room any where for the word retarded except in medical definitions.
Good point. I personally try to avoid the word.
JonF,
You say that personhood/ensoulment happens when the fetus has a functioning brain. That sounds plausible, but there is a catch. If we accept that, then we must accept that Christ obtained His divine soul after a couple months in His mother’s womb, when He had a functioning brain. But that would imply that there was a time when He was solely human (in regard to his human body) and not divine (as His divinity existed in his soul, which was not then existent). That would be Adoptionism, and contrary to the teaching that He was God and Man at all times.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Hector,
Unless we profess that He was not God, nor man, nor even Himself before that moment of ensoulment, but a potential Christ, just as an embryo is a potential person.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Yes, yes, yes, and not checking peoples SSN when they get on the bus is also some sort of subsidy of illegal immigrants.
I really think that the conception, gestation, and birth of Christ should be considered an exception, and not used for any sort of example.
September 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am
But if the wrath continues even when you do what they want, then there’s very little incentive to make concessions in the future.
Yes, but considering these are Democrats, they’ll never learn that lesson and will continue to cave…..
September 14th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I guess we’ll have to let Douthat and Fact Check know that they’re completely wrong:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-health-care-speech/
Maybe Matt should demonstrate that pro-lifers and fact check and Douthat are wrong, before he talks about why their so gullible to such cynical manipulation.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Re: But that would imply that there was a time when He was solely human (in regard to his human body) and not divine (as His divinity existed in his soul, which was not then existent).
No, it would imply that there was no Person present (in the flesh) at all, neither human or divine.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:07 am
LOL — oh, Joe, you’re so …. cute.
For one thing, if you’re gonna be pedantic, it helps to be accurate. “Subsidy” denotes NOT merely the use of government money to lower prices for goods and services, it ALSO denotes government POLICIES which reduce the price for goods and services.
My main source for this? Milton Friedman: “…there is no doubt that the H-1B program enables employers to hire workers at lower wages, and so to that extent it is a subsidy”. There are lots of government policies that do not involve spending directly, but which are nevertheless properly debated as “subsidies” — trade, for example, as well as immigration.
For another, it is just about the stooopidest fucking thing you can do, when confronted with not only a basic deception about a moral issue but also a missed opportunity to reach out to the other side on the SAME moral issue, to make it an argument about the meaning of a word — and to be wrong, to boot. No less than the OED lists the primary meaning of subsidy as “to help”, and further points out that the original legal application of the word in Common Law denoted differing rates of COSTS, which is precisely the meaning here.
So, finally — MY was not only wrong (health insurance reform WILL make abortions more affordable, the same way it is intended to make all health care cheaper), and Amanda was not only insensitive (”retarded”), but the whole bunch of you are self-indulgent to the point of compulsively counterproductive.
You’re pro-choice, and you want health insurance reform, so you don’t want it’s pro-choice bias to be an obstacle? F’r crying out loud, then, don’t lie about it — and worse, don’t try to talk yourselves into imagining that saying “no tax dollars will be used for abortion” resolves the relatively small pro-life objection that is being raised. When your opponents have a small point, keep it small by ACKNOWLEDGING it. Denying it just makes us look shifty — LOL, not to mention Joe from Lowell’s illiterate stoopid arrogance.
Besides, going right to a GENUINE issue — insurance for Down Syndrome people, kids as well as adults — has not only the virtues of honesty and candor, it ALSO frames the issue in a way that gains more votes than it loses, which the likes of Joe and Amanda’s tactics would seem to have had some difficulty with.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Yes, I am. Though pointing this out after what I just did to you definitely qualifies as “trying too hard.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA! That is too awesome for words. I wish – I wish! – I was creative enough to make that up to mock conservatives.
“My source for this?” dramatic pause “Milton Friedman!”
Here’s my source, Dictionary.com:
There is no dispute about the meaning of the word, and I am not wrong. You just invented a new definition of the word, so you can pretend that it applies. The dispute is not about the meaning of the word “subsidy,” but about whether the proposed health care reforms will or will not subsidize – real definition here, not “My source? Milton Friedman, bitches!” definition – abortions. It will not.
Pray tell, could you quote the part where Matt refutes, or says anything whatsoever about, the statement “health insurance reform WILL make abortions more affordable?” Or, barring that, a self-serving Milton Friedman quote? Because I don’t see it, and you have no basis for declaring that Matt was wrong.
Ah, yes: surrender when your opponent raises a bullshit point, and then they’ll stop being your opponents. That’s always worked out so well for the Democrats.
PS – still LOLing at “My source: Milton Friedman.” Noted orthographer Milton Friedman.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:40 am
My source?
David Bowie.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Are you naturally this politically stoopid, or did you take classes?
One of the oldest pieces of political advice is “Always concede on principle.” That is, when there is a dispute about actual stuff — who gets how much of what — the side that wins, as a rule, is the side that most promptly concedes to the other side “on principle” — because THAT is how you take the most stuff, which (as you’ve evidently forgotten) is what the dispute was about.
As I noted, the primary meaning of “subsidy” is “help”. (Sorry, the OED and the original legal use of the word, not to mention ordinary speech as well as a Nobel Prize winning economist pretty much trumps Dictionary.com. If you’re gonna strive for pedantry, Joe, try to be BETTER at it.) So to the extent you have a point arguing about the meaning, you’re essentially insisting that 1) the most authoritative English-language dictionary, 2) the historical origin of the term, 3) common usage, and 4) an actual example by an authority, are all wrong… cuz YOU’RE correct. And how do we know this?
LOL — an online dictionary. Man, you’re a fucking idiot.
Besides (as you’ve evidently missed three times, so I’m gonna make it real clear this time), all this argufication simply proves my point: this is one where it would be smarter for the good guys to concede on principle, and take more stuff, than to fight about it (as you’re doing, you fucking idiot), or, for that matter, to offend people rather than persuade ‘em (”retard”).
Put it this way: when a pro-life person says, gee, I dunno about this health care reform because it will subsidize abortions, it does NOT help to say “it won’t subsidize ‘em, it will only make ‘em cheaper.”
Still worse would be to try that in two steps: “no, it won’t subside abortions.” But will it make them cheaper? “Well, yeah, but that’s not a “subsidy”.
LOL — and you wonder why the bad guys have gained 30 points since May?
It’s not cuz the good guys haven’t had things to say. It’s cuz what we’ve BEEN saying has generally reflected the political stoooopdity exemplified by MY and Joe from Lowell — I fixed Amanda’s point in this regard, cuz it would be a LOT smarter to reach out to Down Syndrome parents (”health insurance reform will help you care for your kids’) rather than to dis ‘em with an INTENSELY loaded word, especially for Down Syndrome kids in the context of abortion: “retarded”.
LOL — but, hey, Joe would rather put up Dictionary.com (um, did you check out what trade agreements regard as a subsidy, Joe? pay particular attention to “pre-competitive development”) against the OED.
Smart guy, huh?
September 14th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Aw for fuck’s sake, by that definition then a public police force is a subsidy for every product and service, because it means that Wal-Mart doesn’t have to hire Blackwater to provide security. If you want to go with that definition, then great, but we’ll be talking about by how much, not whether or not, to subsidize something.
September 14th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
According to http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/ Matt Yglasias may want to apologize for his mischaracterizations. Here is the truly “nuanced” analysis:
Summary
Will health care legislation mean “government funding of abortion”?
President Obama said Wednesday that’s “not true” and among several “fabrications” being spread by “people who are bearing false witness.” But abortion foes say it’s the president who’s making a false claim. “President Obama today brazenly misrepresented the abortion-related component” of health care legislation, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee. So which side is right?
The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new “public” insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that “reproductive services” would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the “public plan” would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions “fabrications.”
September 14th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“by that definition then a public police force is a subsidy…”
Um, no. This is another example why literacy helps, especially when some knucklehead attempts to draw distinctions without a difference.
The basic idea of a “subsidy” is that the government is putting its thumb on (or, I suppose, under) the scale, making something cheaper than it would otherwise be OR, perhaps, making some competing product more expensive. For example, every now and then MY will put on his Train Hat and mumble about how the interstate highway system or government ownership of airports are subsidies for truckers and the airlines — a fair point, but the kinda thing that stretches the word a lot more than observing that reducing the price for abortions makes ‘em cheaper which is what “subsidy” means.
So, no, a police force doesn’t qualify, nor does the military, cuz in general and in theory they benefit everybody equally. Nothing legitimate costs more, or less, because of cops. Making this sort of argument — against the use of a word everybody understands, except, evidently, Joe from Lowell, yourself, and MY — is a sign of folks trying to be a mite smarter than they actually are.
Resist the impulse. It hurts Democrats. In the immortal words of Crash Davis: “Don’t think, Meat. It can only hurt the ballclub.”
Whether we’re talking about private insurance plans which cover abortions, or a public option that would ALSO cover abortions (even when the individual pays for it), the whole point of this part of health insurance reform is to lower the cost to consumers — which means reducing the price for abortions along with everything else: QED.
Why you guys persist in arguing about something so fucking obvious is truly odd — particularly when (as I keep noting) there is a much smarter approach, which is to concede this small point (and thus keep it small, instead of making folks wonder ‘if they trying to con me on this, what ELSE are they trying to con me about?’), and then to note that health insurance reform would ALSO help cover Down Syndrome kids — “safe, legal… and rare”, remember?
September 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Re: Unless we profess that He was not God, nor man, nor even Himself before that moment of ensoulment, but a potential Christ, just as an embryo is a potential person.
Clever, Joe from Lowell. But still problematic. COnsider the case of an eleven year old boy in 17th century Greece, castrated and sold to the Turks. Most of us would consider that a horrid crime. But why? The boy is not being deprived of an _actually existing_ sexuality, since he is not yet a sexual being. He is being deprived of a _potential_ future sexual life. What this tells us, I think, is that we intuitively view a person as having a life history which needs to be viewed together as a concerted whole, and we cannot simply assess a person’s value or identity at a specific moment in time. Hence, your calling it ‘potential life’ does not mean that it ought not to be protected. At best, it makes the case that medically indicated abortions should be permitted, since the health of an actually existing person is more deserving of protection than a potential one. But here’s the thing, I’ve already conceded that, and any realistic pro-life legislation would concede that as well.
N.B., I do not accept that personhood begins with a functioning brain, but I do claim that _even if_ we acknowledge that, it still doesn’t mean that elective abortion prior to that point is OK.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
BTW, I disagree with the Americanist. As far as I know, abortions will not be paid for under Mr. Obama’s health care bill. We pro-lifers owe Mr. Obama some thanks for that, and Christians of good conscience should support the effort to extend health care to all Americans (and immigrants aswell, undocumented or otherwise.)
September 14th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Oh, no. I’m just drawing on my source.
My source? John McEnroe.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Bob Shrum? Is that you?
September 14th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Funny you should mention the OED. I happen to have one right here.
And next to the definition “Help, aid, or assistance” one finds the abbreviations “obs or arch.”
Do you know what those mean? Perhaps you can ask My Source: Fernando Valenzuela.
Nope, it hasn’t stopped being funny yet.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
OK, children, media studies time! Yesterday, we learned about Google. As you may remember, Google doesn’t provide information itself, but links to information provided by others.
Today, we’re going to discuss another valuable online resource, Dictionary.com. Like Google, it does not provide its own information, but aggregates information provided by other sources.
For instance, the word “subsidy.” If you type that into Dictionary.com, a number of definitions pop up. Way down the bottom of each one, you will see the dictionary from which each definition was taken.
For instance,
or
or
OK, now it’s time for third-grade lunch. Everyone have a good afternoon.
September 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I suppose it’s possible that the problem is that nobody except yourself is literate.
But, then, there’s also the possibility that you’re…you know…like the dictionaries all say…wrong.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
(snicker) Honest, Joe — you might heed Mark Twain’s advice: “It is better to keep one’s mouth closed and appear stupid, than to open it and remove doubt.”
I cited Milton Friedman as a source for the meaning of the word subsidy, cuz the guy won a Nobel Prize. For economics.
To ordinary folks, this establishes him as an authority on the subject — not to mention that throughout his extraordinary career (he bitched that Hoover spent too LITTLE at the start of the Great Depression, btw), he argued consistently and voluminously for free markets and against subsidies.
This is what’s known in the wordsmithing trade as “proof”. Not to mention that I backed it up with the primary definition in the OED, which also cited the original use of the word (in precisely the same way I used it) in the law, and hell, I even threw in the way “subsidy” is used in trade agreements, viz, a practice is a “subsidy”, and banned, when it involves reducing the price of a domestic good or service, but not an import, even if it doesn’t involve government spending.
If you had cited Bowie on image management, talking about the transition from Ziggy to the Thin White Duke, or McEnroe on when protesting a call psyches out an opponent, intelligent folks might have thought you had a clue, cuz those are in their respective wheelhouses.
But to scoff that Milton Friedman didn’t know what the word subsidy meant marks you as an imbecile.
LOL — and hell, trying to drag Shrum into it reminds folks that you don’t know shit from cream cheese about politics, either: Shrum’s advice, over 30 years, was ALWAYS to fight about principle, e.g,, “the people against the powerful”, etc.
That’s why Kennedy used to have him write his speeches — but never, ever, his legislative strategies. And guess what? Shrum is famous for having lost I think it was NINE straight Presidential campaigns.
While Kennedy’s legislative success was a legend of a different kind: because in legislation, Kennedy understood you ALWAYS concede on principle.
Which example d’ya want to follow for health care legislation? The one that always loses, evidently.
In this case, you guys want… desperately … to insist BOTH that health insurance reform won’t make abortions cheaper (which is the essential pro-life objection), AND that this would be okay, anyway. Those are contradictory impulses — choose one or the other, cuz if you argue both, it will damage your credibility, as has already happened over other issues in the debate. (This is why the bad guys have gained 30 points since May.)
Face facts:
1) Health insurance reform will make abortions cheaper.
2) It will also make insurance for Down Syndrome kids cheaper.
State ‘em both plainly and proudly, and ya might actually gain back some of the ground we’ve lost.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
…of economics. It does not make him an authority on terminology.
Actually, you didn’t. You asserted that the OED gave that as its primary definition, when in fact, the OED states that that definition is obsolete and arachaic. The OED says you are wrong, chief. That is not the definition, and has not been the definition in the lifetime of anyone alive. Your own source refutes you. Perhaps you should have looked it up before you shot your mouth off.
Could you, perhaps, provide the quote where I insisted that? Is it, perhaps, in the same place where the OED defines “subsidy” as “help?” You know, in Happy Fairy Land?
September 14th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
But you’re not just wrong on the semantic point. You’re wrong on the politics.
The issue of government subsidies for abortion is a familiar one. The Hyde Amendment dates to, IIRC, 1979. The issue is the funding of abortion services with federal money, and the concern that people who are morally opposed to abortion will object to being forced to provide money which will be spent to fund abortions, and thereby make them morally complicit in the act.
It has never been read to refer to funding services, such as grants for medical schools or hospital construction, that have the effect of making all medical services, across the board, cheaper and more accessible.
You have completely mis-defined the issue. It is a relatively mainstream position – one held by a meaningful number of people who are persuadable on health care reform – to believe that federal funding should not be used to provide abortion services. Some people who are pro-choice but personally opposed to abortion object to it, and others who are not opposed to abortion but respectful of the consciences of those who are object to forcing them to fund abortion via taxation. These are people who need to be reassured that the bill will not use tax dollars to fund abortions, and conflating the provision of funds for abortion (which is not proposed) with the provision of funds for medical care other than abortion, with a ban on funding abortion (which is what is actually proposed) will actually drive such people away.
On the other hand, opposition to making medical care cheaper and more accessible, on the grounds that abortion would become cheaper and more accessible as well, is a fringe position, held only by extremely conservative anti-abortion voters. Those people are never going to support Obama’s health care reform anyway, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained by pandering to them.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
And that’s where you go wrong. Shrum’s advice was exactly like yours – to surrender to questionable assertions from the other side. You aren’t fighting on principle – you are surrendering the principle. You are acceding to the assertion from the fringiest of wingnuts that expanding access to health care = subsidizing abortion, even when it does not.
Your advocating for a cringing, please-don’t-hurt-me stance, which amounts to telling people who are lying “What you’re saying is true, but it’s really not that bad,” – just like Bob Shrum.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Perhaps we should also say, “Yes, there are death panels, but they’ll also increase the amount of care some people get.”
Or, “Yes, we’ll ration care based on productivity, but that will make us richer in the end.”
Or, “Yes, we’ll give people pain killers instead of chemotherapy, but that will spare them a great deal of pain.”
Yeah. That’ll work. Much better than pointing out that their charges are false.
September 14th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Wow — you really ARE this stupid.
Let’s unpack this one more time, just to educate this knucklehead in public: are you actually saying, Joe, that nothing qualifies as a “subsidy” UNLESS it involves spending the taxpayer’s money directly?
That’d be news to every signatory to every trade agreement.
I noted upthread that you’re basically creating the following dynamic: some pro-lifer says, I dunno about this health insurance reform, cuz I hear that it would subsidize abortion. Joe responds, no, it wouldn’t — it’d only make ‘em CHEAPER.
Persuasive of you. Especially since you insist that you will only concede the central point in two steps — first you’d say “no, it wouldn’t subsidize abortion” (hey, look in the DICTIONARY, already). And then when the pro-lifer says, suspiciously, but wouldn’t it make ‘em cheaper? Joe’s response is — well, yeah, but that’s not a “subsidy”. Maybe you can piled up the dictionaries. (BTW — I make a living from words, dude. It’s pretty clear you don’t.)
(shaking head) What a maroon.
There’s a pattern here. The biggest hit health insurance reform took this summer was “death panels”, which was a false charge about a real issue — instead of responding with an attack “what, you want Medicare to DENY patients end of life counseling when they ask for it?”, proponents insisted that counseling wasn’t what the bad guys said it was… even as the language was dropped from the bill.
How’s your political strategy working out, Joe? Winning on “principle”, are you?
The next biggest hit, still playing out, is the idea that the bill would provide cheaper coverage to illegal aliens, the reason that Wilson shouted “You lie!” during Obam’s speech. It’s very similar, substantively, to the abortion coverage issue — just as consumers buying private insurance can have abortion covered, so too there is no law barring foreigners, whether legally here or not, from buying health insurance.
But in both cases, the knee-jerk knucklehead response has been MY and Joe’s approach, to insist that the way ordinary people (much less Nobel Prize winners) talk about these issues is all wrong — that WE know better.
How’s that working out, Joe? Gaining lots of House votes for reform, are ya? The Senate decide to stick to its guns on these issues? Did Baucus write verification language into his bill, AFTER Wilson called the President a liar? Has Obama decided to fight for a pro-choice position here?
That’s why I stuck my two cents in here — cuz Amanda flat-out missed a real opportunity, with her “it’s frankly retarded to …” This knee-jerk knucklehead-itude is bad for us.
Polling data has consistently shown for decades that pro-life sentiment is expressed by the largest #s when it is framed in terms of the forcing a hard choice on parents who WANT to keep a kid — like a Down Syndrome baby — despite the costs. That’s why I cited Denyce Graves — Joe doesn’t seem to much like real examples, like the mistaken diagnosis of Down Syndrome for Graves’ kid or Friedman’s actual use of the word ’subsidy’ — because she is a well-known (and well-off) example of a real problem.
LOL — the general understanding of the word “subsidy’ is not widely regarded as a real problem, except to Joe and, perhaps, MY. Amanda seems to get it, viz., “It’s technically true that people will be able to buy insurance that covers abortion—87% of insurance plans do. And they may use subsidies to do this…”
But which has more appeal, telling folks like that it is “retarded” to think that making abortions cheaper through government policy is a “subsidy”, or to remind ‘em that health insurance reform will make it easier for the parents of Down Syndrome kids to buy insurance?
Joe evidently thinks Amanda was right (except for that pesky using English properly thing). He’s wrong.
Cuz that attitude is why the bad guys have gained 30 points since May.
September 14th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Yup. That’s what the word means. Unlike you, I’ve provided the definition. From several different sources. Moving away from the dictionary definition to its use in political discourse, I’ve described what “subsidized” means in the context of abortion and federal policy – a far more relevant application than the contorted language in trade deals.
I’ve said not such thing. I’ve refuted your assertion that this is my position. I have asked you to provide any evidence whatsoever that I would say this, and you have been unable to. Kindly stop lying about my position. I have made actual arguments for you to respond to, and inventing ones I have never made, because you feel more comfortable dealing with them, is not just disreputable, but draws attention to your inability to refute what I have written.
The only prominent example of my political strategy – Barack Obama calling out his opponents for lying about his health care proposals in his speech Wednesday night – worked magnificently. Support for him and his proposals among people who watched the speech skyrocketed, and the most prominent individual who went toe-to-toe with him (Joe Wilson, R-SC) has become a national disgrace and laughing stock. I dearly hope the rest of the Democratic Party comes around to adopting my strategy, and drops the “Mew mew mew, don’t hurt me, it’s not that bad!” strategy of yours, as it has been proven time and time again to be a failure.
…is the provision of funds from the government. Period.
PS – when you find yourself compelled to discuss how stupid your opponent is, it’s because you don’t believe the back and forth of the argument will adequately demonstrate that perception to readers. Just a head’s up.
September 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
is “the provision of government funding.”
The more specific understanding of the term “subsidies for abortion” is, as the Hyde Amendment demonstrates, “the provision of government funding for abortion services.”
The fact that you need to go so far afield as the lawyerly language of trade deals (which you won’t quote or link to, ahem, ahem), rather than discussing the language of abortion policy, really should indicate something to you.
But on the politics, where on earth did you get the idea that “No, it won’t subsidize abortion” and “It will help people who need health care for troubled pregnancies” are mutually exclusive? Certainly, it’s a good thing to highlight how the bill can help people with issues that are of special concern to blocks of persuadable voters – I’ve never disputed that. But is is also a good thing to shoot down false accusations (as Obama did with such effect in his speech), and to take advantage of the opportunity to damage your opponents’ credibility. They’re two great tastes that taste great together.
PS – I am a certified teacher of English and History in the state with the highest English SAT scores in the nation. You really don’t need to condescend to me about “working with words,” even if you are employed at a print shop.
September 14th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
LOL — ah, that explains your pedantry: you’re a TEACHER.
Let us know when you win a Nobel for economics, so we can properly appreciate your arguments by authority.
September 14th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
My arguments from authority, also known as “consulting a dictionary, rather than an economist, about a word’s definition.”
Annwya, let us know when Milton Friedman earns a degree in English.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Dayum — and you TEACH?
Words mean what people USE them to mean. Dictionaries are written (and constantly revised) to catch up with that natural progression. Folks who use words professionally to a purpose (as opposed to teachers of your ilk) understand that.
I keep noting that, in actual fact, the word “subsidy” doesn’t mean what you think it does — the meaning is considerably broader, even in technical circumstances like trade agreements.
In other words, Joe from Lowell: in fact, I DO know a bit more about this than your dictionaries, much less your impulse to consult ‘em — to prove what, exactly? You seem to lose sight of that. (That’s why I didn’t just cite the primary meaning in the OED, but the actual origin of the word — which is considerably more philological depth than you’ve shown. I’ve also cited the word being used in my broader understanding — while you have not shown any examples of the word being used to EXCLUDE what I noted both Friedman, the OED, and trade agreements INCLUDE. Really, try to do better at this, otherwise it’s no fun.)
Put it this way, that you’re stoopid enough to argue that Milton Friedman didn’t know what a subsidy was strongly suggests you’re not helping your kids much: “Writing maketh an exact man”, and you’re not exactly an authority on economics — which, as you doubtless will be surprised to learn, has something to do with the function of a subsidy.
So — what’s your claim here? That making abortions cheaper through health insurance reform, and providing ‘em through health insurance plans in an exchange that is created by the US government is not a “subsidy”.
Psst — here is an example of “always conceding on principle”.
You know what, Joe? You’re right. I was wrong. By golly, the OED’s authoritative citation of the word’s origin, and ordinary conversation, and the likes of Milton Friedman, gee — NONE of those have a clue what the word means. Thanks, Joe — you set us all straight, and we’re the wiser for it.
And ya know what else? Your attitude has UTTERLY fucked up the course of the debate over health insurance.
Like I keep noting, pro-life folks (just to pick one group), essentially ask: what’s up with health insurance reform? Isn’t it going to subsidize abortion?
And you keep insisting — well, if you think THAT, it’s only because you’re too dumb to know the dictionary definition of “subsidy”.
Oh, say the pro-lifers. And they find themselves more, not less suspicious, particularly when somebody like Amanda says it is “retarded” to suspect that the 87% of private health insurance plans that cover abortion would get cheaper because of this government policy.
So they ask — um, wouldn’t this whatchamacallit make abortion cheaper? Won’t abortions still be part of these private plans — which would participate in the insurance exchange? Wouldn’t even a public option also include abortions?
But, hey, Joe: I’ve conceded you the principle that none of this is a “subsidy”.
And I just took 40 Democratic votes away from you in the House, asshole.
That’s why I observe you prove my point: you haven’t said a mumbling word about why it would be smarter to recognize that, yeah, health insurance reform would make abortions cheaper — and ya know what else? It’d make it easier for Down Syndrome parents to get coverage for their kids, too.
That you’ve wasted everybody’s time with — well, your principled stand — is more typical than ya might think.
But, hey: good thing those kids in your state have such high SAT scores, because (as we all know) nothing guarantees intellectual rigor like the SAT.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Re: Oh, say the pro-lifers. And they find themselves more, not less suspicious, particularly when somebody like Amanda says it is “retarded” to suspect that the 87% of private health insurance plans that cover abortion would get cheaper because of this government policy.
What? That’s your proof that federal health insurance coverage will ’subsidize’ abortion? That abortions, through _no intention of the government_, as a _side effect_ of making health insurance plans cheaper in general, will also become cheaper?
Laughable, man. That’s not a subsidy, that’s an example of the well known principle of double effect. The government, the taxpayers, the Democratic Party and those who support the health care plan cannot be held morally responsible if abortions happen to become cheaper through a completely unintended side effect of government policy. I’m pro-life, I find abortions and Roe v. Wade an abhorrent evil, and I would be perfectly fine with that outcome. Because I happen to take the principle of double effect seriously.
In other words, Joe from Lowell is right. I don’t object to ‘abortions becoming cheaper’, I object to ‘the government, in our name, actively making abortions cheaper’. That is not the case here.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
No, he’s not — and for a reason you exemplify: it’s not “passive’.
You want a defense that Joe won’t make, which is why I’ve been picking on him: “The government, the taxpayers, the Democratic Party and those who support the health care plan cannot be held morally responsible if abortions happen to become cheaper…”
I’d put it differently, but that’s essentially true. But ya know what that framing does? It concedes the point that MY denied, which Joe insists is all about the word “subsidy”. (That’s why he won’t make that defense — he insists, instead, that using the word as Friedman did, as trade agreements do, and as it was ORIGINALLY COINED, is the problem: God help his students.)
But it’s not about the word. It’s about the meaning — not of the word (hey, I conceded on principle), but what people mean when they say it.
That’s why I noted that Amanda (who conceded the same point I was making, reform WILL make abortions cheaper) went about it in a clangingly wrong way: it may be stoooopid to argue that nobody who spends their own money on health insurance that covers abortion should be allowed into the exchanges.
But it’s not “retarded”.
MY, Joe’s, and your arguments can essentially get hammered out into “well, it will make ‘em cheaper, but so what? It won’t pay for ‘em.”
Which is precisely what I hammered into you guys all along. This will astonish Joe, but then, he’s the guy who molds young minds, God help the future of America.
The mistake Joe makes (echoing Matt Y) is to try to hide behind the word “subsidy”, which, as noted, does not mean, and is not used to mean, the narrow way that the Teacher claims. (But, hey, he’s fostering the intellectual independence that teaching to the SAT test is famous for.)
The thing is, this IS a major change in health care. Nothing about it is “passive” — and one of the things which it will do, is involve folks in the 13% of health care plans that do NOT cover abortion, perhaps a good many of ‘em for moral reasons (what happens to the Catholic hospitals?) in exchanges that will lower the costs for abortions, just like every other procedure.
Except, ya see, for pro-life folks abortion is NOT like other procedures. They have good reason to worry about it — even, perhaps especially, those who have sorta kinda made their peace with it as a fact of modern life.
Amanda’s take is to insult ‘em, Joe’s take is to tell ‘em they should read a dictionary.
My suggestion — which it is truly amazing to me Joe ignored, to confuse how words are used (this guy TEACHES?) — was simply that it would make more sense, rather than to say people who worry about this are “retarded” (especially since, yanno, they’re right), but to point out that the single largest identifiable block of potential abortions cuz of economics in the country, would be vastly REDUCED by insurance reform.
LOL — and for this, I gotta read about Joe’s notion that the SAT defines intellectual rigor, and that some (ahem) certified English teacher knows more about what a subsidy is than a Nobel Prize winning economist?
LOL — and you wonder how the bad guys picked up 30 points since May?
September 14th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
No kidding. “Subsidy” used to mean “aid, assistance, help,” and now it no longer does. That’s why the OED lists that definition as “archaic, obsolete.”
You have provided no evidence of any “progression” in the meaning of the word “subsidy” beyond that I have provided. The only alternate usage you can find is an article written by Milton Friedman, from decades ago, in which he ARGUES for redefining the word – which demonstrates that even he realized that his audience would not recognize that definition.
You don’t note it, you assert it. Without evidence. In the face of the evidence I’ve provided.
Mixner, is that you?
It does not appear to be so, based on this thread.
On the contrary, Friedman knew exactly what the word “subsidy” meant – which is why he had to formulate an argument to justify using it in such an eccentric sense – because he knew his readers wouldn’t immediately recognize his meaning without one.
There, was that so hard?
which the OED describes as “archaic and obsolete”
which adheres to my usage of the term, and not yours
who recognized that he’d need to explain to his audience why he was using the term in an unfamiliar way
On the contrary, they all knew exactly what the word meant – what I, and every dictionary yet consulted, and everyone who uses the word in conversation, but not you – understand it to mean: the provision of funding.
I trust that, were you able to rebut my actual argument, you would have done so by now. Instead, you keep retreating back to this shoddy straw man.
You haven’t taken a thing, since my actual argument – “the people telling you that are lying, it simply isn’t so” – has only now, this very week, been articulated in an effective and vigorous fashion.
Rather, it is your strategy – yeah, those people talking about death panels and abortion funding are right, but it’s really not so bad – that has been so common among gutless Democrats, and has set back the cause of health reform.
You keep using words like “observe” and “note” in just as inaccurate a manner as your use of “subsidy.”
Let’s go to the tape:
The only part of your argument I haven’t endorsed is the capitulation to the false charge.
Oddly enough, I feel no desire to insult your intelligence or engage in profanity, while you do – and I can be a pretty insulting, profane guy. I wonder why that is?
PS – Hector is actually a pro-lifer, and he thinks your argument is nonsensical. I doubt that will have any effect on your perception of your argument’s validity, though. Just a hunch.
Hector,
Very pithy.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
LOL — once more, and I’m done: this guy is too fucking stooopid.
For one thing, it helps not to pretend to knowledge you don’t have: the Friedman quote isn’t decades-old. He wrote it to me a few years before he died, and I’ve used it in print many times — and not once has anybody objected to his understanding of “subsidy”. Not Gary Becker… oh, hell, what’s the point? You’d have to look ‘em up anyway.
For another, in, lessee, not quite 30 years of professional debate and writing about various subjects in which the word “subsidy” is pretty common, mine IS not only the general understanding of “subsidy” — that it INCLUDES policies which lower the price of some stuff, but not others, as well as BOTH direct payments AND reduced taxes. It’s also the way the word is actually used in very precise ways, for example, in trade agreements.
For a third point — if you examine those three in the light of the dictionaries you’re citing, you realize that the dictionaries are full of it: not surprising, since they are what’s known in economics as a ‘lagging indicator’. But, hey, I’m sure they’re very helpful in preparing for that challenging lesson in independent thought known as the SAT.
Now — for a smarter guy than you, in less of a hothouse than (ahem) certified high school instruction, the proper response would be to cite, not your dictionaries as authority, but actual examples of authoritative use of the word “subsidy” that EXCLUDE the uses I’ve cited. I noted you didn’t do this — what’s a bit more impressive, frankly, is that you didn’t even notice.
As a f’r instance, since evidently actually thinking with words is new to you: Twain famously observed that the difference between the right word, and the nearly right one, is the difference between a lightning bug — and lightning. You want to make a distinction — without a difference.
Consider this example of a distinction done properly — like the US Congress, it is against the rules of the House of Commons to accuse a member of lying. So Churchill famously came up with this euphemism: “The right honorable gentleman seems to have been guilty of a terminological inexactitude….” This stated clearly what he meant — that the guy had deliberately said something false — but avoided the word “lie”.
‘Course (and this is where the thinking supercedes the words) if you apply that to Wilson hollering “you lie!” at Obama, you miss the point, as you do with “subsidy” in the health care debate: it’s not so much that Wilson accused Obama of lying, as that he interrupted the President (a guest in the chamber) to do it: indefensible. Making it about the underlying issue misses the point — which is why, I note, it is so tactically foolish to have the Senate promptly CONCEDE the actual issue, by injecting more verification into the bill.
Likewise, you seem to want to double-down on “making it cheaper isn’t a subsidy”, as if this is going to help: I note that Obama has already abandoned the ground you want to defend.
See, this is how it’s actually: words mean what people use them to mean. Sometimes this is a good thing, when a word becomes more useful. Sometimes it’s a bad thing, when a word becomes less useful — and even, as it evidently has for you, an obstacle to understanding, or an excuse to avoid learning something. (That’s why your dictionary definitions suck — they’re BADLY DONE. No wonder, since you evidently don’t know how to use the OED. Didja even check the word origin and original usage?)
For serious wordsmithing (of which you aint’ got a clue), the way to hone a word’s utility involves not only usage, but origin — that’s why it counts that the original use of the word “subsidy” (which derives from the same roots as “subside”, as in ground subsiding to create a lower place on the earth) was NOT direct government payment, but lower tax rates. From that usage developed the idea that it was also a direct payment — but, as I’ve noted more than twice, the deeper and more common usage still includes government policies that do not involve direct payments, but which nevertheless favor certain enterprises.
I noted that MattY himself has used it in this way regarding the subsidy provided to trucks by the interstate highway system, and that provided to airlines by government ownership of airports, while railroads own and must maintain their own tracks.
See how it works? In all these cases, the broader meaning of the word — that is, the way it is actually used — is USEFUL. It denotes with more precision than your narrower definition, which doesn’t fit.
LOL — if you knew more about what you claim to be your expertise, you’d realize that following the usage of guys like Friedman on a word like subsidy is what dictionaries are SUPPOSED to do.
I didn’t jump into the thread to argue philology with a knucklehead, though. I jumped in to make the point that the pro-life guys are better answered with an AFFIRMATIVE and honest argument for reform — yeah, it will make abortions cheaper, but it will ALSO make it easier for Down Syndrome parents to get coverage for their kids.
That you actually spent any time arguing stuff with me that you obviously don’t understand simply proves how low our standards for American high schools have… er, subsided.
September 14th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Whatever, Mixner. I’m done even reading your crap. I’ve planted you deep enough. Even the rare lifer on this thread says you’re full of crap. You’re just trying to make yourself feel better at this point. Personal insults against teachers? Please.
For anyone else – this isn’t a semantic point. The (rather one-sided) dispute about the meaning of the word “subsidy” is important, because it tracks an important, substantive point about the objection to “taxpayer-funded abortions.”
The concern about subsidizing abortions comes down to people not wanting their tax dollars funding something that they find morally objectionable. Even some people who think that abortion should be legal object to funding it through government revenues.
Conceding the false point – that the lowering of medical costs across the board translates to “subsidizing abortion” – is a horrible idea. Nothing in the health care reform proposals would subsidize abortion, and it would be the height of foolishness to give into the charge that it would. The anti-reformers know that there are people on the fence who can be convinced to oppose health care reform if they believe it will involve using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Allowing them to steal a base, to pretend that reducing the cost of health insurance is the same thing as subsidizing abortion, would then become a cudgel to defeat the proposal.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
RE: MY, Joe’s, and your arguments can essentially get hammered out into “well, it will make ‘em cheaper, but so what? It won’t pay for ‘em.”
That logic could be used to tie abortions to just about anything. The discovery of antibiotics made abortions safer and (presumably) led to more people having them. Does that mean that discovering antibiotics was a bad thing? Is any pharmacy which sells penicillin thereby guilty of facilitating abortion? Should an antiwar doctor object to treating US soldiers on principle? All these are examples of the principle of double effect, and the ’subsidy’ you cite is just another one.
The objective of the public option is not to make abortions cheaper, it’s to make health insurance cheaper. If some private insurers choose to include abortions in their health plans, that isn’t the fault of the US government or the taxpayer, and the only person who can be held morally responsible for it is the insurer.
September 14th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
[...] writing about this weekend’s anti-big-government protests in Washington DC, Matt Yglesias noted that the mood seemed to be as much anti-abortion as anti-health reform. He makes the [...]
September 14th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
My wife and I were expecting a baby and we were so very excited.
But, then the Republicans forced a provison in healthcare “reform” that bars federal funding of legal and safe health-care procedures
Well, we just couldn’t bring a little girl into a world that treated women like that.
So, we aborted because of their stand on health-care.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:07 am
ROFL — you guys couldn’t be more politically stooopid if you spent years in training. I honestly thought “retarded” was the nadir of idiocy here, but guess not.
I noted:
“How about something more sympathetic to WHY people are pro-life: “The truth is, any health care reform that cuts costs will subsidize abortion, because the only way to provide low cost, high quality insurance to those who cannot now afford it is to subsidize private insurance plans that do cover abortions, precisely because no Federal dollars may be spent on abortion except in emergency cases. So pro-life people have to recognize the truth: when people spend their own money to choose abortion, that’s their business. It’s protected by the Constitution. And it’s part of health care. But you know what ELSE is their business, protected by the Constitution — and part of health care reform? Caring for Down syndrome kids, whose parents find it difficult if not impossible to get private insurance. We shouldn’t be putting parents in that kind of impossible situation, which is why we need reform.”
But Harry Sohl thinks it’s okay to make jokes about abortions for sex-selection. God forbid he was telling the truth — I dunno how much more tone-deaf ya can be, than to say ‘We couldn’t bring a baby girl into a world that treats women like that, so we killed her.’
These are the folks you’re encouraging, Joe: good luck to you.