PDA

View Full Version : House Passes Heathcare Bill



Nickdfresh
11-08-2009, 08:42 AM
Landmark health insurance bill passes House
Tough fight still ahead in Senate, and two versions have wide differences
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 1:07 a.m. ET, Sun., Nov . 8, 2009

WASHINGTON - In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry.

The final vote was 220-215. Only one Republican — Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana — voted for the measure; 39 Democrats voted against it.

Obama praised the House in a statement and said he is "absolutely confident" that the Senate will pass its version of the legislation. "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year," he said.

Passage was an exhilarating triumph for Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who earlier likened the bill to passage of the government's Social Security pension program in 1935 and Medicare health insurance for the elderly 30 years later.

But the Senate has yet to begin floor debate on its own version of insurance reform. That debate may be weeks away, with Senate Democratic leaders still negotiating over the details of their legislation.

If the Senate enacts its bill, conferees from House and Senate would then meet to negotiate a final compromise measure.

That compromise would then need to be voted on by the House and Senate.

So Democratic members from Republican-leaning districts who cast a difficult vote Saturday night for the House bill will face yet another tough vote in several weeks.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.

Federally regulated marketplace
At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

In the runup to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.

The vote added to the Democratic bill an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and others, that prohibits individuals who receive insurance subsidies from purchasing any plan that pays for elective abortions.

House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to allow a floor vote on the Stupak amendment to the bill in order to win the support of about three dozen Democrats who feared that the original bill would have subsidized abortions.

Ironically, the abortion vote only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for the conservative Democrats to vote for it.

A cheer
A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed.'

From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."

Nearly united in opposition to the health care bill, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.

"We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick,'" jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing "a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding" bill.

But with little or no doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer's town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting "death panels" to hasten the demise of senior citizens.

The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance.

To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.

The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear.

Democrats lined up a range of outside groups behind their legislation, none more important than the AARP, whose support promises political cover against the cuts to Medicare in next year's congressional elections.

The nation's drug companies generally support health care overhaul. And while the powerful insurance industry opposed the legislation, it did so quietly, and the result was that Republicans could not count on the type of advertising campaign that might have peeled away skittish Democrats in swing districts.

Campaign Harry Truman began
Overall, the bill envisioned the most sweeping set of changes to the health care system in more than a generation, and Democrats said it marked the culmination of a campaign that Harry Truman began when he sat in the White House 60 years ago.

The compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.

As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.

But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.

Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but appeared to pull back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.

One, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., detailed numerous other benefits for women in the bill, including free medical preventive services and better prescription drug coverage under Medicare. "Women need health care reform," she concluded in remarks on the House floor.

Republicans offered an alternative that relied heavily on loosening regulations on private insurers to reduce costs for those who currently have insurance, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. But congressional budget analysts said the plan would make no dent in the ranks of the uninsured, an assessment that highlighted the difference in priorities between the two political parties.

It fell by a near party line vote of 258-176.

Msnbc.com's Tom Curry contributed to this report from The Associated Press.

Landmark health insurance bill passes House - Health care reform- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health_care_reform/)

Sensible Shoes
11-08-2009, 09:16 AM
I'd better be careful about dissing this - considering I'll probably need Govt. health insurance soon.

Nickdfresh
11-08-2009, 09:53 AM
Or you might actually be able to afford a plan since insurers cannot charge women more for their health care, nor deny people who have pre-existing conditions, or drop them for having existing ones...

Big Troubles
11-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Health Care?

Jeez I always wondered why we dumb Canucks can have a great health Care plan, Europe has one of the best in the world, including paid for schooling, yet the Yanks are still running around in circles worried about privatization or coverage and affordability.

Im sure Im missing something here.

My guess is that there is too much spent on military, which is mainly outsourced for "hopeful" profiting, and not enough money and time spent on their own ppl. just my op.

FORD
11-08-2009, 12:17 PM
Health Care?

Jeez I always wondered why we dumb Canucks can have a great health Care plan, Europe has one of the best in the world, including paid for schooling, yet the Yanks are still running around in circles worried about privatization or coverage and affordability.

Im sure Im missing something here.

My guess is that there is too much spent on military, which is mainly outsourced for "hopeful" profiting, and not enough money and time spent on their own ppl. just my op.

Actually, that is about right, unfortunately.

This "health care" plan (a.k.a. giant blow job for the insurance industry) is NOT what I voted for at all. :(

Big Train
11-08-2009, 12:44 PM
But this is what you wanted Ford...Democratic action. Live with it.

hideyoursheep
11-08-2009, 08:35 PM
But this is what you wanted Ford...Democratic action. Live with it.
You prefer Republican inaction?

Status quo was fine with you?

Premiums and deductibles going up, while coverage goes down. That's a good thing, huh?

Cash is the only way. Too bad it isn't realistic.

Nitro Express
11-08-2009, 09:29 PM
Actually, that is about right, unfortunately.

This "health care" plan (a.k.a. giant blow job for the insurance industry) is NOT what I voted for at all. :(

Exactly! Our Congressman read the bill and pointed out it's nothing more than the insurance industry using the government to line their pockets. This is fascism which as defined is the merging of corporate interests and government interests. It's going to make the monopoly pricing in the system even worse. Not fix it.

Nitro Express
11-08-2009, 09:32 PM
The Republicans got duped by Bush. The Democrats got duped by Obama. Both serve the same banking and corporate interests. The game plans run a little different but the touchdown goal is the same. Monopoly.

hideyoursheep
11-08-2009, 09:38 PM
This bill won't pass the senate....so it really doesn't matter.

Who wants to take action on that?

Big Train
11-08-2009, 10:02 PM
You prefer Republican inaction?

Status quo was fine with you?

Premiums and deductibles going up, while coverage goes down. That's a good thing, huh?

Cash is the only way. Too bad it isn't realistic.

Yea, exactly, because I agree with the Dems approach, I'm for all those things. Exactly.

Agreed about cash, it does work wonders if you can work deals out.

Va Beach VH Fan
11-08-2009, 10:50 PM
I'm almost positive I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway....

If somehow a Republican healthcare plan were to be enacted, would anything be in there for those 50 million people without healthcare ???

sadaist
11-09-2009, 02:05 AM
I'm almost positive I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway....

If somehow a Republican healthcare plan were to be enacted, would anything be in there for those 50 million people without healthcare ???


I don't know. How many of those 50 million are illegally here in the US?

Nitro Express
11-09-2009, 02:16 AM
This bill won't pass the senate....so it really doesn't matter.

Who wants to take action on that?

I think you are right. Each state has an equal vote in the senate and even with the Democrat controlled population represented in the congress, the bill only passed by five votes one of which was a Louisiana Republican.

Little old Wyoming has an equal vote in the Senate as does the other states who don't like the Pelosi's bill.

Nitro Express
11-09-2009, 02:21 AM
Instead of these take the whole system over bills we need to start identifying specific problems in healthcare and see if government regulation would make sense to keep the costs down. I think there needs to be some regulation on what insurance companies can charge on catastrophic care. But all these bills proposed are not a solution to the problem.

Big Train
11-09-2009, 02:43 AM
The only problem with US Healthcare is cost really, or "access" as the Dems call it (softer language than cost, implies it's a paperwork error). The Dem plan calls for us all to unite to create bargaining power, as if that has no possibility of not fully working.

Many people (i.e. angry teabaggers) want to explore other options to control costs and really want answers about why it costs so much and is spiraling upward. They want those responses from both parties.

The rush, the "once in a generation chance" bs being peddled is what is causing the anger. The whole thing feels at best half baked. Jailtime for non-compliance being one of the not really thought out well ideas as an example.

hideyoursheep
11-09-2009, 03:32 AM
Agreed about cash, it does work wonders if you can work deals out.

Too bad it's not realistic.

hideyoursheep
11-09-2009, 03:34 AM
Jailtime for non-compliance being one of the not really thought out well ideas as an example.

Al Capone would agree with you.

sadaist
11-09-2009, 04:56 AM
The Senate is basically going to completely change this version. And it most likely will not pass. Why is this being reported as some HUGE victory for Nancy Pelosi? She barely squeaked by a crappy bill, that will be re-written and still fail. I don't understand how that's a win.

Va Beach VH Fan
11-09-2009, 09:59 AM
I don't know. How many of those 50 million are illegally here in the US?

That's a valid point, so I'll go in that direction for a second...

You're not seriously telling me that the "real" number of uninsured and legal Americans without healthcare is nowhere near 50 million, are you ??

Let's say for shits and giggles that 20% of those are illegal aliens....

So we're now down to 40 million.... Or hell, let's say it's "only" 20 million....

The original question remains, does it not ?? Do the Republicans care at all to provide healthcare to those who don't have it ??

But the thing that makes me shake my head on this question is that a helluva lot of people that are WITHOUT healthcare, specifically the low-income folks in the South, are the SAME people that vote Republican their entire lives...

I saw it for myself in the boonies of Western Virginia in July... Thousands of people lining up for a free healthcare fair... Pretty obvious most of those people would not be Democratic party supporters....

BTW, I agree with the stipulation not to provide "healthcare" for illegal aliens, although that merely makes them go to emergency rooms, where they can't be denied....

thome
11-09-2009, 10:31 AM
I NEED a doctor about every 15 years and I mean need due to some broke foot or stitches just average accident stuff.

Hypercondriacts(sp) and habitual com-plainers crybabys med heads who get attention from thier family by bieng constantly medicated.

And the cronically ill are going to rape this system blind.

There is free health care on every corner of every city in america.

It is called the free health clinic.

I could care less about this bill or any of the people who find it interesting.

We, as a nation, evidently ,cannot stop anything our goverment wants to do.

Just remember they have -OUR- best interests in thier hands, that are in our pockets.

Big Train
11-09-2009, 10:54 AM
The original question remains, does it not ?? Do the Republicans care at all to provide healthcare to those who don't have it ??

BTW, I agree with the stipulation not to provide "healthcare" for illegal aliens, although that merely makes them go to emergency rooms, where they can't be denied....

If you can solve the cost issue via other means, you are improving "access". Lower cost means inherently that more people (via employment or purchase) would be able to "access" healthcare. Those who can't afford it, still would have government assistance and the emergency room. That's not the scenario everyone is touting, the panacea of government intervention, but it is realistic.

If we offer healthcare to everyone regardless of status, do you think that will improve or lessen he effect of illegal immigration?

Seshmeister
11-09-2009, 11:02 AM
I NEED a doctor about every 15 years and I mean need due to some broke foot or stitches just average accident stuff.

Hypercondriacts(sp) and habitual com-plainers crybabys med heads who get attention from thier family by bieng constantly medicated.

And the cronically ill are going to rape this system blind.


So the problem with universal health care is that sick people end up get treated?

The other argument is the terrible worry that at some point an immigrant might get treatment.

Incredible stuff from the richest, 'most christian' country in the world.

And some people wonder why the atheists mock...

I was going to give the example of public schools. How many republicans are against having public schools? I don't see why schools should be different from health care but then I see the spelling in your post... :)

thome
11-09-2009, 11:44 AM
So the problem with universal health care is that sick people end up get treated?

The other argument is the terrible worry that at some point an immigrant might get treatment.

Incredible stuff from the richest, 'most christian' country in the world.

And some people wonder why the atheists mock...

I was going to give the example of public schools. How many republicans are against having public schools? I don't see why schools should be different from health care but then I see the spelling in your post... :)


There is no problem with anything as far as I am concerned, but after a few years of seeing how the government runs things...

How they forcebly bankrupt the country ever 20 years or so as to not show a profit because if they did they could pay us in interest and taxes would become a thing of the past.

You and the others around here at -The Front- keep thinking small minded and leave the big thinking/comments up to me.

Get with the program and get your head right.

FIGHT THE POWER!

FORD
11-09-2009, 04:29 PM
The bill has been officially named "The Monica Lewinsky Memorial Corporate Fellation Act of 2009". :blow:

Sponsored by United Health Care, Cigna, Blue Cross, and the DLC.

Big Train
11-09-2009, 04:38 PM
Time to vote them out?

Time for a SERIOUS third party?

standin
11-09-2009, 04:40 PM
There is no problem with anything as far as I am concerned, but after a few years of seeing how the government runs things...

How they forcebly bankrupt the country ever 20 years or so as to not show a profit because if they did they could pay us in interest and taxes would become a thing of the past.

You and the others around here at -The Front- keep thinking small minded and leave the big thinking/comments up to me.

Get with the program and get your head right.

FIGHT THE POWER!

:lmao:

Big Troubles
11-09-2009, 07:22 PM
So the problem with universal health care is that sick people end up get treated?

the problem with a Country trying to build a Universal "perfect or with minimum flaws" Health Care Plan is the fear of the worst case scenario.

America cant afford to look like they are collapsing let alone the actual collapse financially.

Big Troubles
11-09-2009, 07:24 PM
I think once soldiers are brought home and conflict becomes a minimum threat, the US cant stop pumping billions into an offensive military and start feeding it like it were a defensive military.

the difference is still billions and people cant be fed, schooled and have health care providers.

FORD
11-09-2009, 09:18 PM
I think once soldiers are brought home and conflict becomes a minimum threat, the US cant stop pumping billions into an offensive military and start feeding it like it were a defensive military.


We tried that in the 1990's. Yeah, there was that Bosnia thing, but aside from that.... fairly peaceful.

The military industrial complex couldn't stand it. And the BCE & PNAC crew made so much money off the "defense" industry that they actually considered PEACE the worst threat imaginable.

That's why they stole the election. That's why they turned a blind eye/assisted/outright executed the operations of 9-11-01 (depending on whatever theory you believe, the ultimate responsibility comes back to the BCE). And that's why they made damn sure that Iraq and Afghanistan were associated with that. Even though neither country actually had ANY connection (apart from Al Qaeda's distant past in Afghanistan under Poppy's CIA)

Eisenhower (ironically the first BCE president) warned us about these fucks. JFK was murdered by them. And yet all these years later, it seems we haven't learned a goddamned thing. :(

Fuct Jup
11-10-2009, 02:32 PM
What the government will require you to do:
Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period.

Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same.

Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors).

Betsy McCaughey: What the Pelosi Health Care Bill Really Says - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html)

Big Train
11-10-2009, 04:01 PM
Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

Further incentive to be above board, when the alternative (to continue to use free medical services) is so much worse. Jeez...

Nickdfresh
11-10-2009, 04:07 PM
Why wouldn't illegal immigrants be exempt? They cannot get benefits to begin with and will not be eligible for the proposed "Gov't Option."

And how else would the gov't verify that everyone is in a plan? Why shouldn't everyone be in a plan when the rates decrease as they will?

FORD
11-10-2009, 04:13 PM
Betsy McCaughey: What the Pelosi Health Care Bill Really Says - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html)


Uh.... no.

I may be pissed at the fake "Democrats", but I'm not taking that empty headed twat's word for anything.

If she was standing in the middle of the Arizona Desert and told me the sky was blue, I'd wear a raincoat.

Seriously, have you ever SEEN this dumb bitch talk? :biggrin:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OEkOanOj8GM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OEkOanOj8GM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

lesfunk
11-10-2009, 05:16 PM
So have we concluded that this bill disappoints both Righties and Lefties alike?

FORD
11-10-2009, 05:24 PM
Yeah, pretty much :(

Seshmeister
11-10-2009, 07:09 PM
At least you know for sure now who runs the country.

Nickdfresh
11-11-2009, 03:53 AM
An excellent Frontline I began watching last night...

Sick Around the World. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=bigimage&utm_source=bigimage) about other capitalist democracies health care systems...

hideyoursheep
11-20-2009, 07:22 AM
Wake me when the "qualified plan" is designed...until then, I refuse to panic.