In A Historic Moment, Democrats Pass House Version of Health Bill
By Susie Madrak Sunday Nov 08, 2009 5:00pmThere's no questioning the historic nature of the vote. What the Democrats did to get there is pretty ugly (I can't believe we cut a deal with anti-woman C-Street true believer Bart Stupak), but we did get there, and most people will see some real improvements in their lives as a result. Now it's on to the Senate, where hopefully women's rights won't be treated as peripheral to the political process.
And in the meantime, John Boehner warns us that the bill "will dim the light of freedom." Uh huh.
Hours after President Obama exhorted Democratic lawmakers to "answer the call of history," the House hit an unprecedented milestone on the path to health-care reform, approving a trillion-dollar package late Saturday that seeks to overhaul private insurance practices and guarantee comprehensive and affordable coverage to almost every American.
After months of acrimonious partisanship, Democrats closed ranks on a 220-215 vote that included 39 defections, mostly from the party's conservative ranks. But the bill attracted a surprise Republican convert: Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, who represents the Democratic-leaning district of New Orleans and had been the target of a last-minute White House lobbying campaign. GOP House leaders had predicted their members would unanimously oppose the bill.
Democrats have sought for decades to provide universal health care, but not since the 1965 passage of Medicare and Medicaid has a chamber of Congress approved such a vast expansion of coverage. Action now shifts to the Senate, which could spend the rest of the year debating its version of the health-care overhaul. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to bring a measure to the floor before Thanksgiving, but legislation may not reach Obama's desk before the new year.
At the Capitol, Obama urged the few Democrats who were still wavering on Saturday afternoon to put aside their political fears and embrace the bill's ambitious objectives. "Opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation," he said afterward. "This is our moment to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us. Even when it's hard. Especially when it's hard. This is our moment to deliver."
The House legislation would for the first time require every individual to obtain insurance, and would require all but the smallest employers to provide coverage to their workers. It would vastly expand Medicaid and create a new marketplace where people could obtain federal subsidies to buy insurance from private companies or from a new government-run insurance plan.
Though some people would receive no benefits -- including about 6 million illegal immigrants, according to congressional estimates -- the bill would virtually close the coverage gap for people who do not have access to health-care coverage through their jobs.
Login or Register to post comments.
...that after this bill passed, the sky was still firmly in place, and all of my freedoms and liberties that I had started the day with were still in my pocket. Society did not collapse, and my grandmother is doing just fine. No nazis were marching through the streets, and the IRS has yet to call on me for more tax money. The hospitals are still running, as are the clinics. I'm willing to bet that I would survive a Senate version, and a final signed bill would not teach me any more than the twelve words of Russian that I already know. I'll have to get back to you on my children's future debt, though...
Your children already have a huge debt facing them from former President Bush's profligacy, paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by borrowing from China and tacking the debt for those wars onto the deficit.
And no one noticed!!
I just have to shake my head at the johnnycomelatelys who are waving teabags around now. They could have been activists 6 years ago, and it would have saved all of our children a LOT of money.
back in the 80's & 90's. Remember Perot & his cute little presentations with pictures of money reaching the moon to demonstrate what our grandkids would owe? That debt was paid way down during the tech boom, tho never off. I presume the debtor countries & companies preferred to keep a lot of their money in Govt bonds than banks or other investments.
Were profiting from that 2003 adventure, life was rosy and the money was rolling in from the war effort.
The corporations and other wealthy activists organizing the teabaggers, sure, but not the people they bus in.
Teabaggers run purely on fear.
They fear terrorists, so if Emperor Bush says he's gonna start a buncha wars to go n'kill all the damned terrorists, who cares about debt?
They fear changes in health care, so if President Obama wants to change it, they're susceptible to any argument against it, rational or not. It'll increase the debt, someone says? We'd better parrot that, thinks the teabagger. But that someone could just as easily have said, "It's like a Nazi policy," and the teabaggers would parrot that too. (I exaggerate, of course, since that would nnnneeeevvvveeerrrr happen in the real world)
Debt arguments are ancillary to what the teabaggers really think, which is, "I know what I got, and it ain't much, but I fear anything that might get in its way [i.e. that I don't understand]."
Under this bill, you can be fined $250,000, and put in jail for up to 5 years for "willfully evading" the mandatory purchasing of insurance. It first adds a tax of 2.5%, or 5%, depending on your income to your income, and on top of that mandates that everyone buy their own insurance, or face the penalties mentioned above. In no sense is this "free health care". Rather it is the perpetuation of the current system, only now we do not have a choice. Real health care reform would entail removing the insurance industry completely, and going to a single payer system. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that this bill is reform, because in fact it is only additional taxation, and the removal of the ability to opt out.
Where did you get any of this information? I couldn't find a single source to corroborate anything you posted. If you could supply a link or at least the phone number of someone who could independently verify anything you've said. I don't remember reading anything about any of that anywhere, hearing it among many hours of C-Span, but I could be wrong. Or you could be making crap up.
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/New...
There's actually a lot of videos on this as well. Here's a congressman talking about it on CSPAN.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWQNhsmLTU
Even better and more explicit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUp5uXdtUZM
I hate to say it, but we are being tricked. I'm sorry to have to say this to people who thought a good thing was happening. I wish it was what it seemed.
..you should probably have read a little closer. Or the Joint Commission on Taxation should have, at least. The specific language referenced is not penalties to be incurred should an individual not pay the "tax" (which would not even be levied at all under the bill that passed, nor is it included anywhere in the sections cited), but re-iterates the maximum penalties beyond re-compensation for general tax evasion.
Also, the man making this claim, Dave Camp, is taking his own word for it, literally. He was the one who wrote the letter improperly conflating the two issues in the first place. While the JCT is non-partisan, the man writing the letter is not. It was not an official letter. It's bullcrap cut from whole cloth. But I don't suppose that matters to you at all, does it?
"But I don't suppose that matters to you at all, does it?"
Why attack me with unfounded assertions? You may be right, or the congressman may be right. At this point I do not know. I will try and remain objective, and refrain from insulting others. It would be nice if everyone could do the same. In the mean time, I will try to dig deeper and see if what you say has merit. Thank you for replying.
That's a patently false claim. You proved it in your own link- not even Camp(R) claimed that to be the case. What Camp stated was that if you don't get insurance, but are financially capable of doing so, you pay 2.5% to 5% of your AGI. If you cheat on that tax, then you face up to 5 years imprisonment and/or up to $250K in fines. But you skip the whole part from the 2.5%-5% tax and the part about willfully evading paying the tax. And after disproving your own statement with the link you provided as proof, you leave me no other choices than to think you're either stupid or deceitful- objectively speaking.
Well, what a nice group of people here. Stupid or deceitful are the only two choices you can think of? What about misinformed, or tricked by an unscrupulous politician? Did you think of that? Or are you always this quick to insult?
I was in the midst of writing a post how I read closer, and how I was wrong on some points, but you guys beat me to it, and threw in all those nice insults for free! Well, I've no interest in continuing this discussion with such rudeness against me.
I will part with this though. On the website I linked to, it did say, "Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]". It did not specify that this was for the tax code, and not the health bill, you had to read the actual letter to get that. So, in my defense, I believe it was misleading. I'm glad you replied so that others can see this and think about it, and hopefully learn, but personally I am put off by your insults and won't continue this thread. In the future you could be nicer you know.
...misinformed or tricked? The smartest guy in the room?
And, no, I'm not also so quick with an insult if I think someone sincere but incorrect, but you're proving more and more with each keystroke that I've done a good job at culling the herd of choices. Hell, those might not even be choices. You might be both. Let's take a look at this statement:
Which "unscrupulous politician" made you type that out? Camp? You got a link that says, "Yeah, I know I said there's a 2.5% to 5% tax on your AGI if you fail to get insurance when you're financially able to do so, and if you commit fraud to dodge that tax there's a chance you'll end up paying $250K and/or end up in Federal-pound-you-in-the-ass prison for 60 months, but you go ahead and say that if you fail to get insurance, you go straight to jail without passing go and pay $250K. xoxoxo, Dave Camp"???
Because, again, you used him to back yourself up and he disproved you. So either you wrote what you wrote having skimmed Camp's letter and misunderstood it- stupid- or you thought you could tell a little white lie and get away with it- which is both deceitful and, seeing that there might be someone here who actually has the 10th grade reading comprehension level requisite to discern the differences between yours and Camp's statements, stupid.
If I was in your shoes, I'd claim pure stupidity on this and ask for a do-over.
The letter was written by Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. I missed that earlier. My apologies. Camp released the letter to the public.
That wasn't a hard thing for me to do, EM.
...I made the same mistake.
Wow! Your ego is so loud that I cannot hear you very well. I however am not ego-driven, and accept that I am human and make mistakes. When I am wrong, I gladly admit it, for I can then grow and learn from it. However, I find your insults to be counter productive, and inappropriate.
The penalties are indeed from the tax code (not in the health bill), and I see now that the two were incorrectly conflated, and I am happy to admit this. The politicians cleverly blended the two, especially on the video's I posted. However, I must wonder, does it matter in the end for someone who refuses to pay taxes, and does not fall under the exemptions? I mean, does it change the fact that this seems to be a compulsary insurance, and those who refuse, but are able to pay will be punished? I guess we wait till the senate bill changes or scraps it, and things will become more clear.
The headline of the page I linked to reads: "PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail". Though I missed a technical detail, the gist of my original post is not different from what this web page and the video's said and/or implied. My identity is not wrapped up in any party allegience, so if my assessment turns out to be unfounded, I will be happy. I would hate to see people punished for refusing to buy health insurance, and believe that while health care should be a right for everybody, no one should have to deal with the health insurance industry. It should not exist in the first place.
...while i was composing my reply, it's pretty obvious that you didn't follow the hyperlink contained in your own "supporting" link. Here's the pdf. of Camp's letter. Please read the section of the letter titled "Range of civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance".
So you're saying it would have been nicer to just call you a concern troll and be done with you.
I can buy into that.
...your post came across as simply an attempt to spread fear and misinformation, as we often get from "Conservatives" or "I'm a Dem, but..." people who register simply to post bald-faced lies and fear-monger, as is the modern Republican way. I'm sorry if that's not the case. The fact is that your fears, like those spread about "Death Panels", "Government Takeovers", "Forced Abortions", "Tax Increases", "Out-Of-Control Spending" and the like, are all unfounded, and based on repeatability and fear. Scary sound bites will be repeated indefinitely, and we get the teabagging crowd. The second part is, that when we call these "concerned citizens" out on their fear-mongering bullcrap (that they registered specifically to post), they claim that all "liberals" must be mean, evil people, because we hate people who disagree. Not true. We just can't tolerate people trying to scare us by telling everyone the sky is falling.
Well then, you risk coming off as just as ego-driven jerks as the republicans. Personally I think that both sides wrap their identities up too much with political ideologies, to the point that they cease to be decent human beings. And you are still failing to realize that my concern is real. Further research has indeed shown that this is a mandatory program (minus the religious exemption), and the added tax for not having an insurance policy will be enforced under the tax code. So in essence, my point was correct, though a few details were off, and all the insults and defensiveness in the world doesn't change that.
To a GOP website, which edits down the reply from the ranking (minority) Republican on the joint committee?
You're right. You are being tricked. But the people pulling the trick on you aren't the ones you think are guilty of it.
Click through all of the links. Take a look at what Mr. Camp, the ranking Republican actually says. You don't pay the 2.5%-5% tax for not having insurance if:
a). You have religious objections to it, or
b). You can't afford the premiums.
And the jail time(of up to 5 years, but what's the minimum) and/or fines (up to $250K, but, again, what's the minimum?) kick in if you file fraudulent tax returns...Which is what you face for filing false tax returns anyway.
And 2.5%-5% ain't a ton to pay into the insurance pool for the uninsured. I paid a higher chunk of my wages in premiums with my last employer, and that employer is a health care provider which is owned by the insurance carrier.
Andy X ,lol
An insult to Alice X, that is.
:D
I do have a lot of respect for Alice, but she's an ideologue while I'm a liberal who leans towards her ideals. I'm a political realist, while she's a theorist.
that was a compliment to you , we are all theorist , the common problem is how to achieve those goals that benifit not only those that walk in an upright position , but for our very planet and our survival as a species .
This, that is.
;D
whats a old boxer to do , lol
is very watered down...What level of coverage do I get for my dollar compared to what the Congress gets for my dollar!
occurring when the loss of jobs stands at a twenty-six year high with no end in sight. . . etc, etc . .
signed a letter supporting this bill.
It is good for jobs and the economy because small businesses and individual entrepreneurs will not risk so much as they create jobs.
Hardly a victory. The bill doesn't really make sense. private, public option, and CMSP and Medi-cal (or your states equivalent) for unemployed? Who are the ones who receive no coverage? I thought that was illegal.
What happens if you are a foreigner traveling in the US? Are you shit out of luck because none of the plans cover you?
Is there still a cash option?
for a major sheering.
people are uninsured and dying, Ins. companies refuse to cover them because they (insurance cos) might have to pay for treatment, which is also extortionate, partially due to the insurance company's overwhelming paperwork, red tape, and slowness in payment.
The solution: Require all Americans to have coverage -subsidizing some of them- while making some cosmetic improvement laws to insurance coverage.
There won't be a Public Option, no way. The congressmen are owned by the insurance companies.
"What happens if you are a foreigner traveling in the US? Are you shit out of luck because none of the plans cover you?"
That's what Travel Insurance is for. It's usually offered through your travel agent or a cruise line, etc.
Next you'll see the Democrats throwing a ticker tape parade for the 34,000 additional troops we are sending to Afghanistan.
Victory!
this ..."with anti-woman C-Street true believer Bart Stupak." read instead as this "with anti-women's rights C-Street true believer Bart Stupak."
The anti-woman hasn't been bred with Damien Thorn yet.
horse trading begins between the House and Senate approval.
she died of course.
Repubs can now claim their "bipartisan" support. The bread will be buttered in the Senate. I wonder which side?
the popcorn side.
he wanted to vote for some other progressive bills, as I recall, but the Repug leaders surrounded him, no doubt whispering threats.
Bring it on!
"If a government plan is part of the deal, 'as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote,' said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters."
God I fucking hate LIEberman with every fiber of my being. Thanks a whole lot for keeping him relevant Obama. You sure seem to be racking up the mistakes.
or racking up the insurance dollars for the DLC.
Lieberman has an exaggerated idea of his own power and importance ;-) ?
The Stupak amendment:
Since abortions are legally-sanctioned medical procedures, can the courts strike down this kind of law, as unconstitutional?
I really have no stomach for Christian imposition of "values" on anyone anymore.
It's possible to strike the Stupak amendment as unconstitutional, depending, of course, on the arguments made and the persuasions of the judges. If it gets to the Supreme Court, who knows what they'll do at this time?
In any case, in layperson's terms, the basic idea is that laws that create an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion are unconstitutional. At least, that's the current doctrine, changed from the original. Will the Court change it again? Dunno.
I think I can break down the current Court-made law on the Constitutional right to an abortion for everyone:
Abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution, and it receives its own standard of review (not the basic standard applied to other Constitutional rights).
Under that standard, prior to the viability of the fetus (i.e. its ability to live outside its mother's womb), any regulation a state places on abortions must not place a substantial obstacle in the way of the woman's Constitutional right. Such an obstacle would be an "undue burden."
After the viability of the fetus, a state may prohibit abortion altogether unless the procedure is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.
Naturally, this begs the question: What obstacles are substantial enough to be considered an undue burden? Heh, see if you can make any sense of the following . . .
I guess that's mostly sensible, but does it give any predictive leverage on what a court will do in the future?
Thank you.
I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that if Congress passes a law that mandates that all Americans must buy health insurance, and then it singles out a legal medical procedure as being ineligible for benefits...Congress simply cannot enact insane laws.
It all begs the question: Could Congress require all Americans to buy health insurance, and then add an amendment to the bill that states "No legal, medical procedure shall be covered by health insurance"?
I refuse to genuflect
...died today because of the mere threat of health care reform.
Should the Senate pass something similar, we won't need reform, because virtually every person in the country will already be dead.
Oh, wait. No one died. Just like the country didn't turn into a socialist hell hole after the passage of Medicare.
Still, there are now so many ignorant, stupid, selfish, and dishonest people in this country (some qualify on all four counts) that it wouldn't surprise me at all if the GOP made a comeback next year.
the dems are helping them tremendously. So far, Obama has broken ALL the big promises and backdoored the insurance deal. people will remember how they are being fucked after all the democrat promises. I would say 'democratic' but that ain't my Democratic party, save Kucinich and Grayson. even Weiner caved and Pelosi was working against the public option and for the DCCC all along, just following the corporate money.
Independents will remember how the promise of an Obama presidency was offset by bipartisanshit, that a repuglyKKKan vote for anything was used as a cover to further the corporatist agenda as if the Dems were not even a different party.
Funny the way American voters behave, no?
We voted for the Republicans. They chopped our legs off. So, we voted for the Democrats next time. They gave us some first aid, and then chopped our fingers off. So next time, we're voting Republican.
It's the damn swing voters. No real principles in those people, just dummies that watch a lot of tv propaganda.
And what exactly will the GOP run on. Oh right, saying no to everything and sending out the tea bag mobs will have the electorate running right back into the arms of the Repubs.
...Repukes proposed.
It's a start...at least.
At least we are advanced enough where we won't need to worry about being lashed, or having an arm cut off for failing to have health insurance.
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
My doctor says I have to smoke medical marijuana in order to deal with the new health care bill.
their office
Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. drugmakers, medical-device companies and insurers are gearing up for another chance to make changes to House-passed legislation overhauling the health-care system when the issue moves to the Senate.
Many of the House-passed provisions may wind up not being part of the Senate version. If the Senate passes a separate bill, it will have to be merged with the House plan, giving industries weeks or even months to whittle away at policies they don’t like.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206010...
. .
which were more like tantrums (such a stupid name; it makes me think of the Mad Hatter & Alice) .
They'll be really impressed with the parties Pro Public Option will throw.
Time to start working for that true supermajority so we can get better compromises in the future. The Democrats gave up far too much to get this through the house, I shudder to think what the Senate is going to do.
Heh, I get the feeling that we could give the Democrats 100% of the seats in Congress, and it would matter little. They'd bring in mirrors, argue with their own reflections, and they'd lose the debate.
Would the compromises we'd reach be better? I guess so. How much better? Got me.
the DLC / DSCC / DCCC will always sell us down the tubes. the (R)ahmocrats will make a lot of fuss about 'victory' while giving us a usurious, penalty ridden bill that will guarantee that the med insurance companies get 1 of every 6 dollars spent in the country, backed by government subsidies to guarantee the corporate coffers overflow. the 'regulation' will be mythical and as unfunded as the 'investigation' of wall street. I wonder what the tax form will look like.
now that the dems have grown a little spine , we can stop the wars , that would really hit the repugs and some dems where it hurts .
It is a start , for that im thankful maybe just maybe someday this country will join the world . Doubt i will live long enough to see it , but i have a dream ! .
Or about as happy as an insurance exec who's just had over 30 million more people forced to pour their money into his swindle machine.
to give the Insurance companies, Big Pharm, HMO's all the time they need to put this thing on the chopping block.
It may dim the lights in one or two steel towers but that is a good and a green thing.
Sorry if the Baener household has to tighten their belts a little too and dim their lights, but Baener can rest assured this is not about him or his bloody insurance companies. It's about human lives.
does boner have a gov paid for tanning salon at home ? .
The only thing that's going go dim for Boner is the bulb in the tanning bed. That and the one in his brain.
Look at the big and small initiatives that are already under way... since Obama moved into the White House.
This is HUGE. It might not be perfect... but it's gonna be REAL. "Boner" and his Republican Party can go F*** themselves.
Any body got any good ideas over what to do about Joe Loserman in the Senate? The Independants in Conn. ought to RECALL that two-faced shit-heel... before he does some real damage.
bipartisanshit
*
Yipee ! Merry Christmas Insurance Companies and Wall Street ! Usually it's the Repugs but now the Dems are blowing so much smoke up our asses that GasX sales will be going through the roof . This bill is health care reform ? Ahhuh , right , sure it is !
I know that John BoehnHead is not a thinking being, but I am nevertheless compelled to ask what he thinks "freedom" actually is. I mean, I'm not asking for a comprehensive normative thesis, but just a basic idea. What does the word mean to him? Freedom to do what? Freedom from what?
Neoliberalism is freedom to these people. I remember Pres Bush II lambasting Hugo Chavez because the lack of freedoms in Venezuela. It was clear that the "freedom" being referred to is laissez-faire capitalism.
When one hears of expanding freedom throughout the world, often, it is not freedom of expression, or other freedoms that we would assume, but is capitalism unfettered by the government.
There are plenty of people who subscribe to neoliberalism currently active in the U.S. government. Yes, they think that unregulated capitalism translates into equal freedom for everyone. It appears to be their honest conviction, ridiculous as it strikes me.
But I'm genuinely wondering about BoehnHead. Does it mean anything to him? Or is it just a buzzword of good feelings?
... but in the local area, there have been Repubs talking up a plan similar to the McCain plan. Kind of the "neoliberal" approach.
is just another word
for nothing else to lose
According to Andrew Sullivan, who was on the Colbert Report last week, the reconciliation process can be used to get the bill passed in the Senate with 51 votes. If so, that's the way to go in order to not have health reform watered down further. I hope this avenue is tried.
Indeed, under the rules, the health care bill is one that could be brought to the floor through the reconciliation process.
One important thing to remember, is that we don't need 51 Senators to vote in favor of it. Yes, we need 51 votes, but if it's a Senatorial tie, the vice president will break it. So, we only need 50 Senators to vote yes.
Whether we really want this bill or whatever it looks like in its final form remains to be seen.
Assuming that the correct choice, single payer is DOA, then, one has to decide whether the Dem's bill or the Repub's advocacy of doing nothing is the lesser of the two evils.
I'm about 52% certain that the Dem's approach is the lesser of the two evils.
I feel about the same way, though I admit I have not yet read the actual bill or analyses thereof in any real depth. (Shame on me, I suppose, but I'll bet I'm ahead of many of the folks who actually got to vote on the thing.)
While I'm not optimistic, I would like to see the Democrats trump up the notion of (forgive me for using this infernal phrase) "state's rights" by arguing that each state should have the option of choosing Medicare for everyone.
that harry reid is in charge?
of the vote; unless you mean how historically bad this bill is.
"Though some people would receive no benefits -- including about 6 million illegal immigrants, according to congressional estimates -- the bill would virtually close the coverage gap for people who do not have access to health-care coverage through their jobs." Close how exactly?
I guess I read too much Arthur Silber: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/11/fuck-you-act.html
and...
1) if they have any means, they will pay straight out of pocket for insurance, or pay the IRS when they file.
2) if they have extremely limited means, the gubmint will subsidize some of it, further guaranteeing the eventual failure of any public aspect of any insurance option.
3) the IRS will be the enforcement arm.
From what reviews I have read and trust, this is one weak ass bill that passed the House.
As far as meaningful Health Care Reform, I think digby has the best take of the situation -
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/lesson...
I'm a Progressive. I can't stand Republicans, and I don't trust Democrats.
I see no "victory" in any sense here, nothing "historic", no meaningful reform. Nothing but give-a-ways to insurance & pharma lobbies; more of the same-old same-old. I deeply regret voting for Obama in the primary and in the general election. To me, he's been nothing but a huge disapointment, and is now worse than BushCo because he's an enormous hypocrite. He's brought about no meaningful change I can see - troops are still dying in an illegal, immoral war, war criminals go unpunished, the govt. continues to shred the Bill Of Rights, and there is still no meaningful change in the nation's health care system. "The Audacity Of Hype' continues (and apparently many are quite content to continue eating this shit & saying it's tasty). The "public option" included in this bill is a joke, destined and pre-ordained to fail, as has been pointed out in several places on the web. Obama is a liar & a hypocrite, plain and simple - no better than Liberman as far as I can see - a ReThugLican who's no longer even in a Democrat's clothing. Kucinich voted against the bill for all the right reasons - because it's a piece of shit that's nothing more than another huge give-a-way to the insurance companies.
I'll never waste my vote on any major party candidate again. The sooner so-called progressives and liberals get hip to the now-undeniable FACT that the Dems are NO DIFFERENT than the ReThugs, the sooner we might be able to effect some real change in This Once Great Nation.
read it and weep:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:...
sec. 209 premiums
title IV sec. 401 tax penalty
subtitle C sec. 242 affordability
what a bunch of crap. here are 50 million new customers, we'll fine them if they don't buy your shit and we'll tax them to subsidize you. you can't deny them, but you can paperwork and delay them to death. enforcement will be non-existent, you can charge up to double based on age, and premiums can only increase 150% of costs annually. the playing-field-leveling "public option" will have higher premiums than private insurance (CBO)
the only good news is subtitle D, which allows states to enact a single payer system. the bad news is state governments are much more cheaply and easily manipulated by corporate money. the Fed has essentially passed the buck to the states, knowing that it will be DOA
What they should have done (and, I suppose, still could do) is make it so that states have not merely the option to create their own sinle payer systems, but the option to enroll all of their residents in Medicare. And they should have stipulated that any state who does so will also receive all sorts of federal funds and other federally funded goodies.
If enough states go for it at first, even more states might go for it later.
For the first time I turned the channel when Obama came on , trying to sell this phony health-care bill as " reform " and a success . Bottom line it is the same old shit and the Dems failed , now they are putting lip stick on the pig and are telling us how wonderful it is and that they have succeeded . I doubt this will ever get through the senate but if it does Merry Christmas Insurance Industry , Repug party and Republicrats !
Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. drugmakers, medical-device companies and insurers are gearing up for another chance to make changes to House-passed legislation overhauling the health-care system when the issue moves to the Senate.
Many of the House-passed provisions may wind up not being part of the Senate version. If the Senate passes a separate bill, it will have to be merged with the House plan, giving industries weeks or even months to whittle away at policies they don’t like.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206010
They pulled it to close for "comfort"
. . . . .
Hospitals companies such as Nashville, Tennessee-based HCA Inc., who also entered into a deal with the White House and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, have held off many of the provisions of most concern. As part of that agreement, payments for taking care of charity cases would be reduced only if certain insurance-coverage levels are met.
Hospitals also will benefit from treating a greater number of insured patients, analysts said.
Other companies benefiting from new customers include pharmacy benefit managers, such as Woonsocket, Rhode Island- based CVS Caremark Corp. and Medco Health Solutions Inc. of Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.
Those companies will also be helped by incentives for greater use of generic drugs, which are more profitable to the benefit managers than brand-name drugs.
...break any arms patting themselves on the back too hard.
This bill is crap and will become far crappier after the Senate fucks it up further.
I said six months ago that the final product will be essentially nothing, but I was wrong. It will likely become more of a boon to the insurance companies than I'd have guessed.
Login or Register to post comments.