Castle to Uninsured: Die Quickly (and forces women to buy abortion insurance separately)

Filed in Delaware, National by on November 8, 2009
  1. Mike Castle voted to prevent private insurers from covering abortions if they receive public subsidies. Under the Stupid Stupak Amendment, women would have to buy abortion “riders” from their insurers separately. Since many women are insured through their husband’s employer (especially those who choose to be stay-at-home mothers, and let’s not forget college students insured by their parents), this amounts to a stealth “spousal consent/parental consent” law. Mike Castle thinks women deserve the extra stress and scrutiny of buying extra abortion-specific insurance.
  2. Mike Castle voted for the Republican health care plan – the “Die Quickly” plan that does absolutely nothing for the uninsured and weakens regulations on health insurance companies (because gee, they’re so ethical and responsible!). I (and Rep. Grayson) call it the “Die Quickly” plan because if you don’t have insurance and you get a terminal disease/condition, you can’t afford to be kept on life support. You can either die quickly or bankrupt your entire family (it’s bad enough that they’re going to lose you, but now they lose everything they own, too). Oh, and keep in mind that Castle voted to restrict bankruptcy also, so he hopes you choose the “death” option. Mike Castle supports this system and wants to give insurers more freedom to drop people who might actually need expensive health care. (Supposedly, this will cause one of the most profitable industries in the world, which is exempt from anti-monopoly laws, to magnanimously lower their prices for people who are paying for coverages of services that they don’t need, and will be dropped if they ever do need them).
  3. Despite voting for the Stupak Amendment (which passed), Castle voted against the final health care bill. So Castle’s stance on health care is fuck you, nothing, go ahead and die. Unless you haven’t been born yet, then you need to pay extra to die.

What a jerk. How can anyone possibly think of allowing this asshole into the Senate? Isn’t Carper bad enough?

Tags: , , , ,

About the Author ()

X Stryker is also the proprietor of the currently-dormant poll analysis blog Election Inspection.

Comments (62)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Those Contributions Are Fungible : Delaware Liberal | November 9, 2009
  1. nemski says:

    Castle has shown himself to be a tool of Cantor and Boehner time and time again. Oh, we’ll have the wingnuts saying he voted correctly, but I will say this, he has voted against the will of the people of Delaware so often that his time is done.

  2. The Stupak amendment and Ezra Klein’s take on it:

    The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

    Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage. The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate “abortion plans” is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

    Some women will still be able to get abortion coverage through their plan if they have employer-based coverage or can afford to purchase individual coverage. However, I think that the effect will just be to have less plans that cover women’s health concerns.

  3. Perhaps the wingnuts aren’t coming after Castle hard because he usually does the GOP bidding in the end.

  4. nemski says:

    UI, it will be interesting to see if the national GOP can protect Castle from the likes of the Delaware Teabaggers. Christine O’Donnell must be lobbying hard with the Palins of the GOP to endorse her.

  5. O’Donnell will be lobbying hard with the Palins and Bachmanns if she’s really a serious candidate. I have my doubts about that.

  6. A hearty FU to everyone on this list. I plan on donating to primary opponents for each and every one of them. I’ll donate double to the ones on the “aye” on Stupak, “nay” on HR 3962.

    For future reference, here is the list of Democrats who voted “Aye” on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

    AL-2 Bright, Bobby; AL- 5 Griffith, Parker; AL-7 Davis, Artur; AR-1 Berry, Robert; AR-2 Snyder, Victor; AR-4 AR-4 Ross, Mike; CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis; CA-20 Costa, Jim; CA-43 Baca, Joe; CO-3 Salazar, John.

    GA-2 Bishop, Sanford; GA-8 Marshall, James; GA-12 Barrow, John; KY-6 Chandler, Ben; IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel; IL-12 Costello, Jerry; IN-2 Donnelly, Joe; IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad; IN-9 Hill, Baron; LA-3 Melancon, Charles; ME-2 Michaud, Michael.

    MA-2 Neal, Richard; MA-9 Lynch, Stephen; MI-5 Kildee, Dale; MI-1 Stupak, Bart; MN-7 Peterson, Collin; MN-8 Oberstar, James; MS-1 Childers, Travis; MS-4 Taylor, Gene; MO-4 Skelton, Ike; NM-2 Teague, Harry

    NC-2 Etheridge, Bob; NC-7 McIntyre, Mike; NC-11 Shuler, Heath; ND Pomeroy, Earl; OH-1 Driehaus, Steve; OH-6 Wilson, Charles; OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16 Boccieri, John; OH-17 Ryan, Timothy; OH-18 Space, Zachary.

    OK-2 Boren, Dan; PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen; PA-4 Altmire, Jason; PA-10 Carney, Christopher; PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul; PA-12 Murtha, John; PA-14 Doyle, Michael; PA-17 Holden, Tim; RI-2 Langevin, James

    SC-5 Spratt, John; TN-4 Davis, Lincoln; TN-5 Cooper, Jim; TN-6 Gordon, Barton; TN-8 Tanner, John; TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre; TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro; TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon; TX-28 Cuellar, Henry.

    UT-2 Matheson, Jim; VA-5 Perriello, Thomas; WV-1 Mollohan, Alan; WV-3 Rahall, Nick; WI-7 Obey, David.

    Here is the list of 26 Democrats who voted “Aye” on Stupak but “Nay” on the final bill:

    Altmire, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Gordon (TN), Griffith, Holden, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague (h/t to askew and Granny Doc)

  7. jason330 says:

    Castle’s vote show that he is worried about a primary. It is a good sign for O’Donnell. For her part though, she seems to be phoning it in. (Her web site still contains the 2008 material and can anyone link to any NJ or blog coverage of her tea party/campaign event yesterday?)

    In balance this was an odd vote for Castle who is trying to run as someone who is independent from the influence of the Grand Obstructionist Party.

    BTW – Has Castle released his sad faced comments about how much he wants health care reform (but this bill didn’t get there) yet?

  8. LOL and gag me:

    U.S. Rep. Mike Castle, Delaware’s lone voice in Saturday’s House vote on health reform, opposed the Democrats’ bill because of its costs and what he called its shortcomings.

    On the floor of the rare weekend session, Castle — who earlier said he leaned against HR 3962 — said he voted against it “because I believe the vast majority of us in Congress are committed to reducing the skyrocketing cost of health care today and expanding access to insurance coverage for those in need.”

    The longtime Republican representative — called a moderate and a bridge-builder — said if Congress focuses on bipartisan goals and common sense, there can be reform without costs the country can’t afford.

    He voted against it because he is committed to fixing health care!

  9. cassandra_m says:

    So this is what we know about Castle:

    1. The “moderate” business really is a sham — a thing we keep pointing out again and again — because when it comes time to choose between his constituents and his party, he picks his party most of the time.

    2. He voted for the repub version of health care (the Die Quickly Bill) which changed NOTHING about the health care system and certainly was not a bipartisan effort. Bipartisanship is a two-way street, Congressman, and you don’t get to whine about it if the effort by your party doesn’t get there, either.

    3. And what is it with this media stenography on the “costs”? This bill is PAID FOR. Unlike anything done by repubs when they were running the board.

    4. Lastly, I’ll note that Castle certainly did not offer any ideas, plans or bills that would address his concerns re: costs or coverage — just stood on the sidelines offering up his Party’s talking points. This does not count as “moderation” or “bridge-building” people.

  10. jason330 says:

    Exactly Cassandra. With yet another lockstep, party line vote – the silver lining for Delawareans is that Castle has clearly partisan-ized the Senate race. That allows Beau Biden (or whoever runs) to make a strong Democratic case for governance. By inclination, Beau would probably prefer to thread the needle like Tom Carper, but by playing to the wingnut base of his party, Caste has given Biden a huge opening.

    Whoever motivates their base will win this race. I think Castle knows that and he has a lot of work to do to win over the wingnuts. Biden on the other hand, is now free to heap derision on Castle for all the phony “moderation” embodied by these recent party line votes.

    Biden statement on Castle’s vote:

    “I’ve known Mike Castle my whole life and I respect him. But like the Republican Party which has lost its way and cares more about power than it cares about governing – Mike Castle has lost his way and this vote shows that he cares more about being a loyal Republican than he cares about the people of Delaware.”

    That’s how I’d write it up if I worked for Beau.

  11. nemski says:

    Okay, The News Journal cannot call Castle a “moderate” any more without listing the names of people who think so. BTW, Beltway pundits don’t count.

    So please News Journal, start naming names of pols and politicos that consider Castle a “moderate”?

    And bridge-builder? WTF

  12. nemski,

    He’s building a bridge between the right and the far right. I would also like to know who’s calling Castle a moderate. Castle and his staff? Of course, moderate is now becoming a dirty word in the GOP, so will Castle run away from that as well?

  13. Tom S says:

    Where do you apply to work on the Death Panels for BO’s plan?

  14. jason330 says:

    People who say Mike Castle is a “moderate” :

    Tom Carper
    Celia Cohen
    Mike Castle
    Jim Soles
    Chip Flowers
    Charles Lamot DuPont Copeland
    People who depend on the News Journal for their news
    The birth certificate in a ziplock bag lady

  15. nemski says:

    Tom S, don’t bring that tired crap here. Jebus.

  16. Geezer says:

    The statement is pure, unadulterated bullshit. There is no way to both reduce the price of health care AND widen its availability through the existing bureaucratic nightmare of part-public, part-private insurance. Only single payer does that, and it does it by ending private health insurance, a step very few in office seem willing to even consider.

    That being the case, the choice is wider coverage or savings, and no bill proposing savings was ever on the table.

    As to cost: The day conservatives do a cost-benefit analysis of the Wars Against Islam, I’ll listen to their whining about the cost of health care.

  17. jason330 says:

    You’re right Geezer. The statement might as well have said, “I vote the way John Boehner tells me to vote.”

  18. Geezer says:

    The offensive part is the pretense of consideration. If savings were what he wanted, why didn’t he say so months ago?

  19. Geezer,

    I think it’s how Castle keeps up the pretense of being a moderate. He pretends he’s going to vote against his party and then at the last minute votes how his party wants. It’s simple. Just keep telling people you’re a moderate and pretend to be thoughtful.

    Castle said months ago in his town hall meeting that he didn’t see the rush and he wanted to go slow. The News Journal has been writing what’s the rush let’s go slow editorials for months now. I’m not sure why Castle even pretended that he thought about voting for the Democratic bill.

    Castle lost all pretense of thoughtfulness on the bill by voting for the hastily put together Republican alternative which did nothing to lower costs or cover the uninsured.

  20. cassandra_m says:

    This Tweet from Chris Hayes (via Ezra Klein) seems appropriate to revisit:

    Anyone notice that the pres signed a $680 BILLION defense approp bill in the midst of our debates about $90b a yr for hc?

    And while Castle never saw a defense appropriation he thought could control its costs better, he would vote against a bill costing about 13% of the defense appropriation that may actually make us healthier as a nation.

  21. jason330 says:

    If you look at all his statements when he cast these lockstep votes, they are full of sadness and regret that the bill didn’t do everything he wanted it to do.

    To read his pressers you get the picture of a guy who has never voted for a bill he honestly liked or against a bill he didn’t kinda love.

    Hedge, hedge, hedge. Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. Regret, regret, and regret. All of that “unadulterated bullshit” sounds like “Moderation” to the simple minded.

    I hope Biden takes his fucking head off.

  22. I’m with you Jason. I hope Joe Biden’s killer instinct was passed on to Beau Biden.

  23. DB says:

    “4. Lastly, I’ll note that Castle certainly did not offer any ideas, plans or bills that would address his concerns re: costs or coverage — just stood on the sidelines offering up his Party’s talking points. This does not count as “moderation” or “bridge-building” people.”

    http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/markup/FC/HR3200-AmericasAffordableHealthChoicesActof2009/Castle38.pdf

    Incentivizing people to be healthy helps control costs.

  24. nemski says:

    DB, did these amendments make it into Boehner’s bill?

  25. jason330 says:

    ouch! Nemski applies the pimp hand.

  26. FWIW, here is Rep. Ahn Cao’s statement on his vote for HR 3962. He’s awful happy about the Stupak amendment.

  27. nemski says:

    Hey DB, just wondering how you came by this PDF?

  28. Yeah, you are right — we Republicans support the plan that says “fuck you, nothing, go ahead and die” to the uninsured.

    On the other hand, you Democrats support the “fuck you, pay through the nose, go ahead and die anyway” for all Americans.

    Well, except for elected officials, who won’t be covered by the “fuck you, pay through the nose, go ahead and die anyway” that your party has voted to have imposed upon we commoners. No, your petty lordlings and pampered princesses — and the demigod Obama — will ensure that they get something better than the rest of us, given that they are our betters.

    And for those of you whining about the abortion coverage, isn’t that a bit hypocritical? After all, it strikes me as the ultimate in pro-choice provisions — those of you who believe in abortion can CHOOSE to pay for the feminist sacrament, while those of us morally offended by the practice get to abide by our consciences and not subsidize the slaughter of the innocent.

  29. cassandra_m says:

    These amendments did not make it into the Boehner Bill.

    And these amendments let insurance companies charge you a differing premium based on whether or not you are participating in a wellness program. Which is fine as far as it goes (and it does not go very far) but, there isn’t all that much incentive to be had unless insurance companies offer wellness programs (they all don’t) and if these wellness programs did not cost the insured additional fees to participate.

    But this is pretty weak tea in terms of getting a handle on premium costs or health care costs and is probably why Boehner did not include it in his bill — the bill that Castle did vote yes on.

  30. lizard says:

    a few facts to spice up the discussion:

    How much does a surgical abortion cost?

    ■In 2001, the average charge for a surgical abortion at 10 weeks’ gestation was $468; but since most abortions in the United States are performed at low-cost clinics, women on average paid $372 for the procedure. (31)
    How much does a medical abortion cost? In 2001, the average charge for a medical abortion was $487. (31)

    Who pays for abortions?

    ■Some 74% of women pay for abortions with their own money; 13% of abortions are covered by Medicaid, and 13% are billed directly to private insurance. Some women who pay for the procedure themselves may receive insurance reimbursement later. (31)

    http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html

  31. nemski says:

    LOL. Burris comes in with this Castle Amendment which was . . . wait for it . . . it’s going to be awesome . . . the amendment was WITHDRAWN.

    Weak.

    http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1152

    Scroll down and ye shall see.

  32. cassandra_m says:

    Not just weak tea, but No Tea At All.

  33. DB says:

    Do you know why it was withdrawn? I’ll give you the opportunity.

  34. nemski says:

    No I don’t know why. What do Castle’s people say?

  35. nemski says:

    FYI Dave, you’re ending up in the spam filter. Trying to figure out why.

  36. jason330 says:

    Residual goatfuckery.

  37. nemski says:

    Thanks jason.

  38. DB says:

    Yes. The amendments made it into Boehner’s bill.

    How’d I know? My red phone rang and Castle begged me to defend him on Delaware Liberal. Or maybe because I read it here.

    So say what you want (you always do), but he was offering ideas to improve the legislation.

  39. nemski says:

    The News Journal, or widely known as Mike Castle’s New Castle office. 🙂

  40. nemski says:

    BTW, can’t figure out why you are going into spam (other than Jason’s reason). Will have to wait for Liberal Geek to figure it out.

  41. nemski says:

    So, seriously, trying to understand here.

    Castle puts for an amendment and then withdraws it from a bill that is going to win, and puts it into a bill that will lose?

    Where’s the logic in that when trying to represent the people of Delaware?

  42. xstryker says:

    ‘‘In applying subparagraph (B), a group health plan
    (or a health insurance issuer with respect to health
    insurance coverage) may vary premiums and cost
    sharing by up to 50 percent of the value of the benefits under the plan (or coverage) based on participation (or lack of participation) in a standards-based
    wellness program.’’.
    (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made
    by paragraph (1) shall apply to plan years beginning
    more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
    this Act.

    WOW, THAT’S THE CASTLE PLAN?!? Allowing insurers to raise our insurance premiums if we don’t “volunteer” for their wellness plan? Holy shit, is this guy tone deaf or what???

  43. I wonder if it’s something the Republican leadership did to make sure that Castle didn’t vote for the Democratic bill.

  44. xstryker says:

    I assume he withdrew it from the Democrat’s bill because it was heinous bullshit that no one in their right fucking mind would support.

  45. cassandra_m says:

    Indeed — and while his text mostly made it into Boehner’s amendment I made a mistake there), it is still very weak tea. There are no real incentives to wellness or reduced costs it the wellness programs do not exist, are not offered or cost the insured more money out of pocket.

    An idea it may be, but it makes no real dents in coverage or costs. As the CBO score gotten on the Boehner Bill pretty clearly notes. But it is anoher repub idea standing in for actually addressing the larger problem.

  46. DB says:

    Nemski — Should overweight people who smoke pay the same as fit people who don’t for health insurance?

  47. xstryker says:

    No, the GOP added to the bill because it would generate profit for the insurance companies and raise costs for consumers. That’s the Castle/GOP plan.

  48. You do realize that $400 is a lot of money for someone making minimum wage don’t you? Are so rich that you forgot that? Of course, $400 is a lot cheaper than a full term pregnancy when you’re uninsured.

  49. jason330 says:

    Well said X.

  50. xstryker says:

    Please, do not get confused and think that the Castle amendment has anything to do with cutting costs. ALL IT DOES IS GIVE INSURERS PERMISSION TO RAISE OR LOWER COSTS FOR PEOPLE (up to 50%) IF THEY DO OR DON’T PARTICPATE IN A WELLNESS PLAN. The wellness plan will be designed in such a way that only a small percentage of people will be able to participate, and everyone else will get 50% cost increases. This is the “bend over REALLY FAR” amendment.

  51. My company is going down the wellness plan route.

  52. DB says:

    Anybody going to answer the question?

  53. xstryker says:

    Overweight people who smoke already pay more for health insurance, genius.

  54. pandora says:

    Can’t wait for the “new” overweight calculations… and underweight, too, by the insurance companies.

    A 5’6″ woman will now be requires to weigh between 122 and 124lbs. Don’t fall into that range? Up go your rates!

  55. lizard says:

    UI, I posted the data without comment.

    as for how much is $400:

    16 pizza’s with everything
    12 cartons of cigarettes
    50 movies tickets.
    1.5 Wii game consoles
    1 flat screen TV
    4 new car tires
    a washing machine
    half a hot water heater replacement
    3/4ths of a $10/wk emergency fund

    it is also $385 million dollars a year.

    (1.3 Mil abortions * $400 * 74% not covered by medicaid or private insurance)

    For those of you in the “Abortion should be free” crowd, you have an alternative to Government intervention, you could form a charity and raise $385 million a year.

  56. xstryker says:

    Wow, so abortions are as easy for minimum-wage earners to get as a flat-screen TV! That explains why poor people have so few flat-screen TVs, they must be out buying abortions.

  57. $400 is a lot of money to many people, I don’t care how you try to slice and dice the numbers. Generally when you buy pizza you don’t have to take one or two days off work and get harassed by an angry mob only to be treated like a child who doesn’t know her own mind once you get there. In some states the women might have to take 2 days off of work. So it’s not just the cost, it’s also the time off (every hour you don’t work you don’t get paid you know) and the ignorant scum they have to deal with.

  58. Progressive Mom says:

    I still think that the Republican moaning over abortion is just a “look over here!” trick to stop all health care reform.

    Unless your definition of reform is “insurance companies should only have to take the people they want, at the premium they want to set, and not have to pay for any real illness.”

    Now that’s reform Republicans can believe in!

  59. nemski says:

    Agree with X that individual payers are already vetted by insurance companies and price is decided upon medical history.

    Interestingly enough, I find it humorous that DB finds it okay for private companies to tell people what to do, but this would be a violation of one’s constitutional rights (according to teabaggers).

  60. lizard says:

    NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access

    NOW ^ | 11/08/09 | Terry O’Neill
    NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion AccessSays Bill Obliterates Women’s Fundamental Right to Choose Statement of NOW President Terry O’Neill November 8, 2009 The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women’s fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry. We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion. Birth control and abortion are integral aspects of…