PDA

View Full Version : Health care reform finally moving ahead?


Wigmund
11-08-2009, 12:09 AM
Apparently the US House of Representatives has just stayed up past their go-home-and-diddle-around time to pass their health care reform bill (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care/index.html).

From CNN:
The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215.

Earlier, the House passed an amendment to pending health care legislation that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create.

The vote passed 240-194.

A second amendment considered by the House, introduced by Minority Leader John Boehner, which would have substituted several sections of the health care bill dealing with insurance, did not pass. Legislators voted against the amendment 258-176.

The first amendment, introduced by anti-abortion Democrats, bans federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create. Its consideration was considered a big win for them and for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power -- especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts -- to help force other Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.

Republicans strongly supported the measure.

The GOP accounted for 174 of the votes in favor of the amendment, with 1 Republican voting "present."

On the Democrat's side, 64 voted for the measure, and 194 voted against.

Read the House bill (PDF) (http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf)

Earlier Saturday, President Obama said members of the House of Representatives face the chance of a lifetime as they consider the legislation.

After a meeting with the House Democratic leadership, the president said he told lawmakers that "opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation."

"This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us," Obama told reporters in the White House rose garden. "Even when it's hard, especially when it's hard, this is our moment to deliver."

He had just returned from Capitol Hill, where the House had begun debate on the nearly $1.1 trillion health care bill.

A senior Democratic aide quoted the president as saying during the meeting that he was "absolutely confident" that they would pass the legislation.

"When I sign this in the rose garden, each and every one of you will be able to look back and say, 'This was my finest moment in politics,'" the aide quoted Obama as saying.

Anti-abortion Democrats will introduce an amendment to the measure that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option and other insurance providers in the new "exchange" the legislation would create, three Democratic sources told CNN.

The prohibition would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the woman's life is in danger.

House Minority Leader John Boehner said the GOP leadership strongly supports that amendment.

"We believe taxpayer funding of abortion is wrong, and we will do everything we can to stop that from happening, by passing the Stupak amendment," he said.

The fact that the amendment will be allowed to be proposed is a big win for anti-abortion Democrats and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power -- especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts -- to help force Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

"We didn't have a choice," said a Democratic leadership source. "We didn't have the votes" on health care without agreeing to this compromise.

Planned Parenthood decried the amendment, saying it would result in the elimination of abortion coverage currently offered by most private health insurance plans.

"This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes," the group said in a statement.

The Democratic sources said people would be able to use their own money to purchase insurance policy riders that include abortion coverage.

"I foresee for poor women in America a return to the dark ages," said Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida.

Meanwhile, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus staunchly oppose including a provision that would bar undocumented workers from using their own money to buy health insurance policies available through the exchange.

The measure is already included in the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill and is backed by the White House. Some conservative House Democrats have also indicated their support for the Senate language.

Several Hispanic Caucus members who discussed the issue with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday said they had received assurances the Senate language would not be included. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, warned Thursday that several caucus members might try to block the House bill if it's changed to conform to the Senate measure.

Pelosi's bill includes various requirements for immigrants to verify their citizenship before getting federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Conservatives, however, have called the requirements insufficient.

Many conservatives and Blue Dog Democrats also continue to raise questions about the overall cost of the bill.

"The speaker's bill includes job-killing taxes and mandates that will hurt small businesses," Boehner said Friday. "For the sake of our families and small businesses, this job-killing bill needs to be defeated."

The House bill would extend insurance coverage to 36 million uncovered Americans and guarantee that 96 percent of Americans have coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Share your thoughts on the health care debate

Among other things, the bill would subsidize insurance for poorer Americans, establish a new government-run public option and create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for small groups and individuals to purchase coverage. It would also cap annual out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Pelosi's office has said the bill would cut the federal deficit by roughly $30 billion over the next decade. The measure is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and spending constraints in Medicare and Medicaid.

Not too fond of the Stupak amendment to the bill, but at least the House is doing something.

PDF is linked in the quote above if someone wants to read the bill, it actually looks like a short read despite being 1990 pages, large font and incredibly wide margins. All the legalese makes my head hurt though.

Any thoughts?

bluestarultor
11-08-2009, 12:26 AM
I really don't like the Stupak amendment, myself, but, well, there are other options if a person doesn't want a baby. They CAN give them up for adoption, so it's not like they're absolutely stuck with them. It would be a blow if it passed, but with the numbers, it looks like it probably will, and I'm not really holding my breath on otherwise.

Still, any reform we can wring out of this is a plus.

Aerozord
11-08-2009, 12:52 AM
they actually thought this out better then I would have. Goverment is cutting expenses by requiring businesses and insurance companies to do more. Walmarts old strategy of keeping people just under whats needed to get insurance for example will no longer be allowed. Also works to make private insurers more practicle but I doubt they will last long as alot of them were probably just after easy money. And FINALLY getting rid of that denile of coverage thing for medical history. Cancer, AIDS, and other long term sufferers can finally get the medical care they need. On a less extreme end I personally can get medical aid for asthma and allergies.

Though with my luck I'll be in that 4% that still isn't covered

NonCon
11-08-2009, 02:55 AM
I am genuinely surprised that this passed. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I just didn't think it would. I figured too many Republicans would be voting against it on account of it helping people less fortunate and too many Democrats voting against because they didn't want to lose their fiscally conservative voters or whatever. Hopefully this does not result in a big long politics discussion the next day I go to work.

Mirai Gen
11-08-2009, 03:08 AM
They certainly fought tooth and nail - it only got in by five votes.

POS Industries
11-08-2009, 03:11 AM
Walmarts old strategy of keeping people just under whats needed to get insurance for example will no longer be allowed.
It's also worth nothing that Walmart is supporting the Democrats' goal of health care reform to whatever extent they can get away with (http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/9238.aspx), largely because they're currently paying $350 million a year to cover their employees and they figure whatever taxes they'd have to pay for the government to take it over would certainly have to be less than that.

Aerozord
11-08-2009, 03:19 AM
well this bill is better, but its still vastly inferior to what other contries have. Where its
human = total medical coverage

I am worried by what these people might consider "affordable". Which for many is anything abit above zero. Unemployed and self employed, those this is meant to help, typically lack any real source of income and what they do have goes to other things, like food. I just dont want goverment option to be what we currently have, insanely high deductables. At the very least physicals and other preventative care should be free

Smarty McBarrelpants
11-08-2009, 05:27 AM
Wait, wait, wait. So they are going to force the people who can least afford to have a baby to have one, while those who can afford have the option of terminating it?
Somethings seems backwards in there.

Marc v1.0
11-08-2009, 05:36 AM
Considering that part is backed by the more Conservative members, it sounds just like the kind of perfect logic they hold close.

Seil
11-08-2009, 11:06 AM
So what's this I hewar about "Furher" Obama's health plan? It's actually good?

Go figure.

Smarty McBarrelpants
11-08-2009, 12:25 PM
I'm a bit concerned that as far as I can see there is no talk of nationalising the actual healthcare system as a whole because I could see this as excuse for the privatised healthcare centres to rack up their prices and just keep extracting more and more money from the government.
I'm concerned the rest of the system is too privatised.

Fifthfiend
11-08-2009, 12:59 PM
Hypothetically the public option could ameliorate that, for all that the version in the Pelosi bill amounts to a compromise of a compromise and that every single other version likely to pass is even worse.

Wigmund
11-08-2009, 02:24 PM
I'm a bit concerned that as far as I can see there is no talk of nationalising the actual healthcare system as a whole because I could see this as excuse for the privatised healthcare centres to rack up their prices and just keep extracting more and more money from the government.
I'm concerned the rest of the system is too privatised.
One step at a time, Americans tend to freak out and go ballistic if you change stuff too fast for them and take a good long time to get use to the change.

New reasons to be optimistic about the health care reform plan - Fox News and Joe Lieberman don't like it:
Fox News: Democrats Face Electoral Backlash After Health Care Vote, Top Republican Warns (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/08/democrats-face-electoral-backlash-health-care-vote-republican-warns/)
Democrats will pay at the polls for their vote in favor of a sweeping health care reform package Saturday night, a top House Republican warned, while Democrats cheered the bill's narrow approval as a historic achievement.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the House Republican Conference, told "Fox News Sunday" that the vote proved Democrats have not listened to American concerns about over-spending, bailouts and government takeovers.

"The message from last night is that the Democrats didn't get the message in August or last Tuesday," Pence said, referring to the town hall meetings over the summer where members of the public protested the plan and last Tuesday's election where Democrats lost two big governor's races.

"I think the American people are deeply frustrated with a liberal establishment in Washington, D.C. that is ignoring their will," Pence said. "If Democrats keep ignoring the American people, their party's going to be history in about a year."

Pence said Republicans were booted out of Congress in 2006 and 2008 after being hammered for over-spending, and predicted the same could happen to Democrats in the 2010 congressional elections.

But the Democrat in charge of defending his party's majority in the House next year said Democrats took their cue Saturday from voters' "message" in the 2008 election, which sent President Obama to the White House and strengthened Democratic majorities in Congress. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said voters were upset that Republicans "did nothing" about issues like health care while they were in power and wanted Washington to step up to the plate.

"That's what we did last night," Van Hollen told "Fox News Sunday."

Van Hollen noted that Saturday's vote was just one step, albeit "a very big step," on the road to health care reform.

The Senate, where the Democratic majority is smaller, still has to approve its version of the bill.
"I know the Senate's committed to moving ahead," Van Hollen said.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is still trying to round up enough votes.

Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" that Democrats can certainly count him in the "no" column if they keep in a government-backed insurance plan.

"If the public option is in there as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," the Connecticut senator said, signaling that he would back a Republican filibuster -- which Democrats need 60 votes to break.

The House bill passed by a 220-215 vote late Saturday night.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later -- and Obama issued a statement saying, "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year."

"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 run-up 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.

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

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.

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.
Knowing that Fox News doesn't like this makes me happy inside.

Marc v1.0
11-08-2009, 02:29 PM
You gotta love watching them try to spin "Free, quality Health care no matter your social standing" as a bad thing. Like trying to watch a fish convince oxygen that it's water or something.

Viridis
11-08-2009, 02:32 PM
"The message from last night is that the Democrats didn't get the message in August or last Tuesday," Pence said, referring to the town hall meetings over the summer where members of the public protested the plan and last Tuesday's election where Democrats lost two big governor's races.

"I think the American people are deeply frustrated with a liberal establishment in Washington, D.C. that is ignoring their will," Pence said. "If Democrats keep ignoring the American people, their party's going to be history in about a year."

This really just seems to be a very vocal minority, as I think some polls have show that 50-something percent of Americans (at least) favor a public option.

57%, says Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html)
This source even says 77%. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html)

Smarty McBarrelpants
11-08-2009, 02:39 PM
Polls I've seen were about 60-70% though I can't remember the source, this is just from memory.

Marc v1.0
11-08-2009, 02:46 PM
I think "American People" in his context is actually "The People That Give Us Money To Say Things"

Yumil
11-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Doesn't pelossi's bill still have the huge fine/5 year jail time if you dont get insurance? I'm surprised it passed the house at all.

Sky Warrior Bob
11-08-2009, 05:06 PM
Doesn't pelossi's bill still have the huge fine/5 year jail time if you dont get insurance? I'm surprised it passed the house at all.

No, I think you are thinking of the Baccus's bill in the Senate Finance committee. I don't believe its in the final version of the Senate bill, yet to be voted on.

See in the Senate the Finance Committee and the Health & Human Services committees both had to submit bills. The two get combined & that's what the final vote in the Senate will be all about.

As I understand it, Baccus's bill was all around awful. Instead of having the entire Finance committee construct the bill, he convinced Reid to let him & five others craft the bill. 3 Democrats & 3 Republicans (the so-called gang of 3).

It pretty much was compromise after compromise, and while the original version of the bill did have a provision, like you said, I'm not sure if that was in the final Finance committee version. As there were a number of changes made to that as well.

And as I understand it, the combined bill that will go to the full Senate, has a Public Option & not the Co-Opt plan that Baccus was going for.

SWB

Bob the Mercenary
11-08-2009, 07:46 PM
Question time!

Aren't insurance companies' profit margins like 3% or something like that? There's still something about this argument that evil insurance companies are running up rates (a la Shin-ra) that sounds fishy. Not that I can really say I'm against the bill anymore.

And what's all this I'm hearing about tort reform? Why isn't that included in the bill? I'd figure if you wanted cheaper healthcare you would target malpractice insurance and ridiculous drug prices first. Or open the borders and give consumers 1400 insurance companies to choose from, competition driving down costs. Or maybe I'm wrong about all of this.

NonCon
11-08-2009, 08:02 PM
Aren't insurance companies' profit margins like 3% or something like that?

I don't know about that, but I do know a problem with many insurance companies is that they'll find reasons to drop you the moment you actually need money, and there is supposed to be stuff in this bill to deal with that. Also keep in mind that you aren't saying what that 3% is out of. 3% can still be a hella lot if it's a big enough number.

Tev
11-08-2009, 08:09 PM
Also keep in mind that you aren't saying what that 3% is out of. 3% can still be a hella lot if it's a big enough number.That's very true. Comparatively, gambling slot machines net the casinos only 1% of the money put into them over the life of the machine. The other 99% is given back. Now do they still get stinking rich off that 1%? Yes, yes they do.

3% profit over the life of a person, especially if you can weasel out of having to pay any expenses on that person, is an enormous amount of money.

bluestarultor
11-08-2009, 08:25 PM
Yet another issue is that opening the borders probably won't increase competition as much as people might think, since the bigger insurance companies, ones that run across different states, can afford to take a bigger hit. Remember when gas was $0.79 a gallon? No? That's because it was during the Gas Wars, where the bigger companies dropped their prices too low for the mom and pop places to compete with, driving them out of business. Opening things up for "competition" only really means the big guys are better able to kill off their competitors. The government option is going to provide competition without the side effect of letting the big guys stomp all the smaller guys until you have an oligopoly.

I'm almost suspicious that this kind of thing is why Republicans suggested it in the first place, because, yes, you'd get an initial boom going as prices plummeted, but after that, it's all in the hands of the silhouettes in the dark room with red glowing eyes ruling things, so to speak.

Bob the Mercenary
11-08-2009, 08:54 PM
Why did I not think of any of that? My brain must be working off an older firmware version.

Mirai Gen
11-09-2009, 12:54 AM
I think "American People" in his context is actually "The People That Give Us Money To Say Things"
From what I've seen most of the noteworthy Republican individuals who fight for "American People" really mean "Just me, but I want them to think I mean them; they eat that shit up."
Why did I not think of any of that? My brain must be working off an older firmware version.
You need to work your way off of Neocon XP.

bluestarultor
11-09-2009, 01:06 AM
You need to work your way off of Neocon XP.

I hear Liberal 7 is out now and people are really liking it. :p

Aerozord
11-09-2009, 01:21 AM
all I have to say on the only complaint they can manage to actually make "it will cost more then what we currently have" well DUH, thats because so many people have NO health care.

And trust me, 3% or not they are price gauging. My step-father works for a union which grants him health insurance. Which is nice, unfortunately 100% of three of his four pay raises went to paying for it, and some of the fourth. Do you really think raising insurance costs by thousands of dollars a year, per person, over less then a decade is a fair increase?

01d55
11-09-2009, 04:00 PM
Currently the private health insurance market is cut up into a bunch of local monopolies segmented by local and state regulation. Forcing states to "open the borders" will force a "race to the bottom" as insurers close their operations in high regulation states and move to unregulated states, and then offer their unregulated plans nationwide thanks to the proposed federal requirement that such be permitted.

This de-facto elimination of state level regulation certainly could make things worse, but it won't change the fact that health insurance is available on a private monopoly basis.

Corporate bastards have been fishing for an issue to hang tort reform on for over a decade now, it's code for "Make sure nobody can sue us for a meaningful amount of money when we screw them over."

shiney
11-09-2009, 04:13 PM
I truly hope there is a Joe Lieberman exclusion whereby he is not covered by anything in the history of the world and the act of being Joe Lieberman is considered a pre-existing condition.

01d55
11-09-2009, 04:20 PM
I truly hope there is a Joe Lieberman exclusion whereby he is not covered by anything in the history of the world and the act of being Joe Lieberman is considered a pre-existing condition.

The entire congress - House and Senate both - receive free health care provided direct by the government. Note that this is not free insurance, the actual doctors are paid direct by the government.

Viridis
11-09-2009, 04:28 PM
Let's just declare fear-mongering in general a pre-existing condition, too. The "death panel" sort of talk.

Of course, this might just cause them to claim they were right all along

Wigmund
11-09-2009, 10:10 PM
I truly hope there is a Joe Lieberman exclusion whereby he is not covered by anything in the history of the world and the act of being Joe Lieberman is considered a pre-existing condition.

That's almost as bad as the affliction of being Rush Limbaugh (aka Beached Blowhard Syndrome). Of course neither of those conditions compare to being Glenn Beck - I've heard being Glenn Beck is terminal and only comes after the subject has been reduced to a blubbering fear-mongering twit.

Aerozord
11-09-2009, 10:56 PM
today we had someone do a persuasive speech on why national healthcare is bad. When I explained to him how my grandpa refused to take an ambulance because he couldn't afford it (and to clearify that was the last place he ever went to, so it was a serious problem), I was told "thats an extreme case". I honestly dont see why, old man dying, is "extreme". I was under the impression senior citizens having medical emergencies was common

NonCon
11-09-2009, 11:09 PM
I probably would have responded, "Well, you're the one giving the speech... Do you have any facts or statistics to back up that statement, or is that the case because you say it is?"

bluestarultor
11-09-2009, 11:21 PM
today we had someone do a persuasive speech on why national healthcare is bad. When I explained to him how my grandpa refused to take an ambulance because he couldn't afford it (and to clearify that was the last place he ever went to, so it was a serious problem), I was told "thats an extreme case". I honestly dont see why, old man dying, is "extreme". I was under the impression senior citizens having medical emergencies was common

I would have probably countered by asking what he thought of mortality rates of the elderly. You know, because old people kind of have the habit of dying of old age.

Magus
11-12-2009, 07:24 PM
I don't get why some Democrats supported an anti-abortion amendment. I was surprised it wasn't proposed by Republicans until I read this story (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29456.html) (read: RNC insurance plan covers elective abortion), although I'd still like to see Republicans quit bitching about it as well, of course.

What's funny is they'll undoubtedly have a bill reversing the anti-abortion amendment in a few years. It's kind of like they want to introduce legislation that they know will continue to be fought over to guarantee themselves relevancy in their jobs or something.