I don't like to make non-substantive posts such as this one. But the comments in the previous article are getting a bit unwieldy, so I'll leave this up as a placeholder for anyone spending their Saturday night watching C-SPAN. The U.S. House is debating health care tonight and is expected to pass it. A previous 538 analysis had forecast that a bill much like the one under debate tonight would get about 222 votes. It looks like Pelosi may do a bit better than that, thanks to a sort of Faustian bargain on abortion. On the other hand, if she has votes to spare, she may will release some of her more vulnerable members, so anything from the bare minimum of 218 up to the mid 230s seems possible.
UPDATE: (12:54 AM) The bill passes, 220-215; roll call can be found here. Our original projection wound up being really good -- we'd projected 220 Democratic and 2 Republican yeas; in fact there was 219 Democratic and 1 Republican yea. Although, for a variety of reasons, this was a relatively easy projection to make.
11.07.2009
House Likely to Pass Health Care Bill Tonight
@ 7:31 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
241 comments
We can do this, guys! Start calling senators. Find yours here!
Senators don't vote in the House.
Great site. I'm glad I stopped by. I have a site as well, where everyone can come from around the world and debate each other on popular issues. I was hoping we could do a link exchange. Please let me know.
Jason
DEBATEitOUT.com
@Aaron
I think Willy's mentioning Senators because no messages will get to the Reps before they vote--time for the grassroots to work on the Upper House (Until we get to conference phase that is).
We'll see, gonna be close...
Lots of undecided votes left in the House.
Incidentally on this "Faustian bargain" on abortion (great terminology btw)--if it passes, what are the odds it gets pulled out in conference?
I mean I can't imagine someone like Stupak voting agaist the final product even if reproductive health is covered (or can be by private insurers if it's watered down.
I know Snowe and most Senate swing votes are pro-choice. Does anyone know if there are any pro-life Democrats in the Senate?
Plenty of Pro-Life Dems in the Senate.
Reid to start.
Jacob: You are wrong, I am working a phone bank in Philadelphia right now and we are still patching people through to some poor staffer in Carney's office.
Everybody, if you haven't already, PLEASE call your representative and tell them to vote for the bill. Especially if your representative is a blue dog. I have heard that we have the 218, but that is *all* we can guarantee. Getting a few votes above that would really help when we're pushing the senate.
I think I'm on the fence about Stupak's amendment. I mean, I'm pro-choice. But I appreciate that very sensitive, serious, thoughtful people aren't. I also appreciate that nobody, -nobody-, can say for sure whether abortion is the termination of a nonviable batch of cells of the murder of a unique human soul. We don't know. We make choices based on our faiths & our upbringing and, hopefully, an awful lot of soul-searching.
.
So I find it hard to be angry that there is a large bloc of people who don't want their money going to fund something that they consider to be flat-out murder. And I can understand why an amendment like Stupak's makes sense.
.
Of course what it means is that those who are in the most desperate straits, the poorest and most vulnerable, may have the option of abortion closed to them while daddy's rich girl will be able to go with business as usual. Which also seems patently awful.
.
All I know is, whatever I feel about the issue and the people making the decisions, I don't envy them their task.
MidPoinMan said:
"A bill that is palatable to blue dogs cannot get past the house progressive caucus, which means no bill can pass the house--which means there is no bill.It is over. "
What a tool.
Saco-Harry:
The Stupak amendment did nothing towards stopping the federal funding of abortion; as it stood, the bill would allow private insurance plans that covered abortion in the exchange, but the people who would purchase it would have to pay more for it.
The amendment made it so that insurance plans that cover abortion won't even be allowed to be on the exchange.
So, no, it wasn't a matter of satisfying people who feel differently about abortion, it was just another "fuck you" to women.
It's getting late. I've never watched an entire day of this before. What controls when they call it a night? Is there an agenda anywhere that dictates what's going to happen?
It would be funny if Bill Owens (NY-23) turned out to be vote 218. Pelosi will surely say something along those lines simply to drive the Republicans crazy.
"So I find it hard to be angry that there is a large bloc of people who don't want their money going to fund something that they consider to be flat-out murder.'
So what do I do if I consider Afghanistan of some other war to involve flat-out murder of innocent already-born life. How do I opt my tax money out of that?
Saco,
It's a very interesting Amendment. And given the way the exchange works, eventually EVERYONE will be buying through the exchange. And since Abortion is outlawed by the amendment (except in extenuation cirucmstances), eventually NO ONE will have abortion coverage.
Is (eventually) stripping abortion coverage from millions of Americans (effectively meaning only "rich" people can get abortions) worth it for Liberal democrats so they can get wider health care coverage?
It also highlights the problems some cons have with the bill...which is more Government "decision making" in health care. Right now, if you want abortion coverage...you can pick an insurance company that will provide it. Under "Health Care reform"... choices go away.
Saco-Harry;
The Stupak amendment goes beyond not using government money to fund an abortion. It won't allow a woman to SPEND HER ON MONEY for an additional plan!
In other words, it's legislating morality. Pure and simple.
That's a heck of a slippery slope.
Getitdone,
Easy. Get a whole ton of people behind you, and make your views quite known, especially via voting, campaign contributions, and lobbying.
That's how the Pro-life movement does it.
Democracy...it's the Tyranny of the majority.
Sacto,
Now you see the problem some cons have. They don't WANT to spend their money on say, Acupucture insurance, but it's "mandated" by the State.
The woman in question can always buy a separate insurance policy not on the exchange, that just covers abortion. "Co-Insurance" is common in "universal health care" countries like France
Pat-I am not convinced that the majority are "pro-life". All the polls I have seen say that the majority supports a right to 1st trimester abortions. Only late abortions are opposed by the majority.
I do reject this argument about using tax dollars for something someone finds morally objectionable. Some one finds almost everything morally objectionable. Can vegetarians demand their taxes not be used for meat inspection?
Obviously Pelosi will not call for a vote unless she knows for sure they have 218 and the Dems can just keep congress in session until they have 218.
Again, as I said a long time ago, the more the party of No! acts like 100% obstructionists and poor losers it gives the Dems more of a bunker mentality in passing any legislation.
Elections have consequences! :)
getitdone - I think abortion and war against the Taliban aren't comparable. Concerning abortion, every time it occurs, something (or someone depending on your views) dies; whereas if it is denied, generally no one dies.
.
This is very different from Afghanistan. The Taliban & their allies killed & tortured good, decent, innocent people every day. By launching a war against them, we guaranteed that in that conflict more good, decent, innocent people would die - and in fact continue to die. However, standing aside and -not- launching a war would condemn others to die.
@ Aaron, I believe it's not so much when they go to bed as when they close the session. They can all go home and go to bed without ending the session; they just pick it up again tomorrow until the presiding officer gavels it closed, presumably after a final vote.
Others more knowledgeable-- do I have that right?
As I understand it the Speaker can call for a vote at almost any point, or table it and reopen debate tomorrow.
Saco-Harry:
My point is not whether abortion or earing animals or the Afghan war or war in general are moral. Everyone is entitled to make their own decision. My argument is that just because someone decides something is immoral, can they opt their taxes out of it?
We don't allow that for anything but abortion, why not?
And since Abortion is outlawed by the amendment
No. According to quote in linked Ezra Klien article this is NOT the case. It was specifically clarified. It is only unavailable for those people with some form of subsidy that won't be allowed to purchase it. Insurance that covers abortion will still be allowed on the exchange. Because of how the subsidies work this disallows the purchase by most people with insurance through the exchange, not all of them.
It is indeed a if-you-are-rich-you-get-the-option ammendment. *shrug*
I am more concerned about the representative who said he needed to call his bishop and would not vote yes on the bill unless his bishop said it was OK. I can respect someone for voting according to their constituent's wishes, but I strongly disagree with voting according to your personal religious leader.
Honestly I can't imagine that any pro-lifer who would actually vote for the bill wouldn't be satisfied with a ban on abortion coverage within the public option.
That seems like enough of a compromise as it is. I wonder if there is a good way to water down the Stupak amendment.
Aaron,
House Res 903 that was passed this morning contains the "rules" for how debate will be taken care of during today's session
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.903:
Also there are only 10 or so pro-life Dems in Congress (and many more pro-choice Repubs). How would the Stupak Amendment get through?
It is indeed a if-you-are-rich-you-get-the-option ammendment. *shrug*
Or to put it in MtnMan900's terms, a big fuck you to lower and middle class women and the people that support them.
Of course this helps perpetuate complaining about poorer women going on welfare due to having to stop work to care for a child. So that's all win-win, right? :/
Why should the Catholic church influence this debate over healthcare?
There are 615 Catholic hospitals in the US, accounting for 12.5% of community hospitals in the United States, and over 15.5% of all U.S. hospital admissions.
Throughout this debate, supporters of abortion rights have attempted to draft language that departs from the long-standing policy of not allowing federal funds to be used for abortion, as well as to remove conscience clauses for hospitals and providers who choose not to participate in a procedure they consider morally objectionable.
Far from being a "Faustian" bargain, this seems a reasonable continuation of long-standing policy. Interestingly, despite the fact that Medicaid does not fund abortions, Planned Parenthood reports that the rate of abortion among women below the poverty line is 4x higher than for wealthier women, so the argument that this would underserve poor women seems specious. Abortion remains inexpensive compared to other surgeries, and is often a cash business rather than following an insurance reimbursement model.
Catholic voters are central to the Democratic coalition, yet pro-life Democrats have often been marginalized in the party. A reasonable compromise in order to secure the support of on the largest social services providers in the United States.
"So, no, it wasn't a matter of satisfying people who feel differently about abortion, it was just another "fuck you" to women."
---
If abortion--other than that to save the health of the mother or in cases of rape, etc.--is not covered by the health care bill, big damned deal. That can be handled in the future, when any bill that is passed is tweaked by future Congresses.
If the right to have an abortion itself were being challenged, I'd feel differently, but based on what I've read, it is not.
Here we are on the cusp of the most meaningful legislation in decades and all I see from some "progressives" is more whining about how the health care bill is not exactly what they wanted. Well, welcome to our pluralistic democracy.
Trying to scuttle the bill now, as some have suggested, because of perceived imperfections is a big "fuck you" to the tens of millions of Americans who lack adequate health care--including men, women, and children.
Wow the comments here have debated the amendment longer than the House did before they rejected it.
The Stupak amendment as the original Hyde law are both insane. The country should come into a middle of the ground decision on abortion and end this destructive conflict.
Abortions at will during the first trimester
Abortions with restrictions after the fetus develops nerve endings and can feel pain.
@Mark Pecot;
It's a necessary compromise. I do not agree that it's reasonable.
As I told Saco-Harry, by disallowing a person the ability to buy additional insurance that permits abortion if they buy into the public plan, they go beyond the point of "not allowing federal funds to be used for abortion".
That is legislating a person's morality. Period.
And legislating morality is a very slippery slope.
However, I wonder why the recorded vote on the amendment was postponed and if that has anything to do with last minute whipping that might still be taking place?
Considering the low cost of abortions, it's an acceptable sacrifice as long as no one tries to reverse Roe v. Wade in the process.
If you think conservatives are mad now, imagine how they'll be if Fed $$ go for what they perceive to be murder. Livid comes to mind. Homicidal not far behind.
@Getitdone
So what do I do if I consider Afghanistan of some other war to involve flat-out murder of innocent already-born life. How do I opt my tax money out of that?
I was a war tax resistor for three years of the Bush Administration. Not something I'd readily recommend if you make enough to be on the IRS radar since it is illegal. Would be nice if you could check a box on your tax return that says that the Fed cannot use your taxes for war. Like that would ever happen.
How is the debate going? I am in Australia and am finding it a little difficult to follow on the internet. When is the vote expected?
Wow the comments here have debated the amendment longer than the House did before they rejected it.
Ah, so it wasn't so much a Faustian deal as it was allowing face-saving.
Considering the low cost of abortions, it's an acceptable sacrifice
Roughly speaking what does a 1st trimester abortion cost? I imagine the later the term the more costly, as it becomes more and more invasive.
The House just concluded debate on the Republican alternative. CSPAN covers it on their website. Currently, they are taking a 15 min recorded vote on the Stupak Amendment. I presume next will be a vote on the Republican alternative. Then probably a vote on the actual the actual bill.
Well, I've just been listening to the House debate. Man, those people are full of hot air!
Would it kill them to learn to speak better? (I heard someone, I think it was John Boehner, pronounce hyperbole as "hyper-bowl".) I can excuse them for not thinking very well, since their job is to represent positions, not come up with original ideas. But considering how much speechifying they do, I would expect a little more polish.
There's a saying that politics is show business for ugly people, but I think it's more like show business for people with no talent.
173-157 in favour of Stupak ammendment
One of the trickier points on both sides is the issue whether Medicare benefits will actually be cut if the reform bill is passed.
The way I understand it is that Dems contend that BENEFITS under Medicare won't be reduced at all, but COSTS of the Medicare program will be cut in one specific way. Namely, the huge subsidy for the health insurers that Bush provided in the form of "Medicare Advantage" programs would be phased out. Obama has alluded to the fact that this was a waste that had little if any net benefit to anybody except the insurers.
From cases that I am aware of, if people buy into a Medicare Advantage plan (and pay additional premiums as well), they give up regular Medicare. But in exhange for that they may get some added services but also be restricted in their choices of doctors to those designated by the insurer.
And in some cases I've heard about, health providers (doctors, hospitals) actually regard MedAdvantage patients as different from Medicare patients, and further this doesn't always accrue to the advantage of the Medicare Advantage patients because they may face greater restrictions on the types of services available.
I've also noted an incredible amount of advertising recently by insurers who are offering Medicare Advantage programs. (And this isn't just targeted at people in my age group.) Insurers are trying very hard to lock in their special subsidy by signing up Medicare-eligible people to the Medicare Advantage program before the new reform comes into place. Why are they doing this? It is very profitable to them! Well recognized as Bush's gift to the insurance companies.
I believe the Stupak ammendment will pass. At present, there are 55 Dems for it.
I hope they pay the price for this betrayal...
10:17
238-191 / 1 Present
5 votes not yet cast. There you have it.
10:20 Final
Stupak passes.
240-294
Republican from AZ votes present
So how much does an abortion typically cost, anyway? On principle I'm strongly opposed to this amendment, but practically, I'm not really sure what its effect will be. Having a child is a pretty expensive proposition in itself, after all. Are abortions really so expensive that many women who would otherwise have had the abortion will choose to carry the baby to term?
Republican alternative just went down in flames
Interesting. One GOP "no" for Boehner amendment. Swampland at Time.com mentioned a Lousianna GOPer who might break for the Dem's House bill. Do we know who the one GOP "no" is here?
And do we know the motives of the AZ GOPer who went "present" on Stupak?
@yoink
According to Planned Parenthood between $300 - $900
Crap.
Poor, barefoot and pregnant with no recourse?
Apparently you cant watch CSPAN on a Mac.
lillyahoo, probably still recourse. Would require organization of charities to cover costs I imagine. Don't know, maybe such things already exist?
I'm watching it on a Mac try getting the Flip4Mac plugin here http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/wmcomponents.mspx
Thanks Mr. Universe. Well...I'm sure there are some people out there that this amendment (if it lives through to the final bill) will prevent from getting abortions, but I wouldn't think it would be many. If you're really dirt poor, then you're probably not currently covered by insurance anyway. This bill won't make matters worse for you, and by providing you with subsidies to pay for health care it's likely to make your financial situation better--making you more likely to be able to afford an abortion out of your own pocket.
As a strict financial calculation, $300-900 must, surely, represent a considerable saving over carrying the child to term (even if that part of the process is covered by insurance). Although not, perhaps, if you're planning to give the child up for adoption. It's a sucky measure, but if it allows the bill to pass, it's probably worth it.
The lone Republican voting against the republican alternative was from IL his name is Timothy Johnson.
Now Cantor is whining about something. I'm a Mac user and can't get a good feed from cspan. Looks like he's making a motion to recommit (final chance to change bill)
Last minute hail mary pass. Hoyer just reamed them a new one for the lack of notice.
It's going down fast.
Final vote at top of hour.
Although I am against the Stupak amendment, my understanding is that the Dems had to include it in order to get the 218 votes on the whole health care bill because some conservative Dems demanded it. It's like wanting to play a neighborhood baseball game, but only one kid owns a baseball, and he won't play unless he gets to pitch. You may not really want him to be the pitcher, but if you want to play baseball badly enough, you will hold your nose and let him pitch.
Looks like again there are two Republican voting with the Dems. Be interesting to learn more about what's going on with that. Cantor has been pretty firm in his guarantee that no Republican will vote with the Dems. Could it be possible a R will vote for the bill?
And once again, progressives get fucked by the Democratic leadership. The leadership got Weiner to withdraw his single-payer amendment because they said that they weren't going to allow any amendments in order to prevent Stupak's coat-hanger amendment from coming to a vote. Weiner withdrew his amendment, and then the leadership turned around and allowed a vote on Stupak's amendment anyway.
Fuck the Democrats. That's it. I'm done. Progressive third parties, here I come.
Here we go
It should be interesting how those GOP "Moderates" who are running for the Senate in 2010 - like Kirk and Castle - spin their no votes on HCR. These guys are cutting their own throats. It's interesting to watch.
218!
It's a lock. Passage.
There it is. 218. We have a bill.
Hey, Burt, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out....
A Phyrric victory .. the bill will be watered down further in the Senate so we have guaranteed the loss of the House and probably 3-5 Senate seats for ... ?
And it passes with at least one Republican
Holy fuck! A Republican!
Did he/she wait until it had already passed to make his/herself look good?
1 republican just voted yes
Who are those 2 brave Republicans? Good to see at least some of them still care about people instead of lobbyists.
We have a piece of shit bill that not only forces you by law to give money to private corporations, but also aids and abets the death of women. Pardon me if I'm not enthused.
And negotiations with the Senate haven't even begun yet. Expect to see what few good things are in the bill taken out, all the bad things made even worse, and of course, even MORE watering down of the joke of a public option that's already in the House bill.
Hmmm...One Republican on board. Snowe?
She waited until the 218 was in. Pretty smart move, I guess.
Joseph Cao - LA
Snowe is in the Senate.
Final total. 220 - 215
This was almost as good as the Bama game earlier.
I heard a Republican voted for it. Thanks for confirming.
I guess he wants to be re-elected in a liberal as hell district.
Was Owens NY23 part of the vote, or does he not take office until January?
4...3...2...1
When you said
A Phyrric victory .. the bill will be watered down further in the Senate so we have guaranteed the loss of the House and probably 3-5 Senate seats for ... ?
Who is "we"? As far as I can see the Democrats just guaranteed themselves a house majority for another decade.
looks like the one GOP is Cao from New Orleans. Props to him, since he cleaned out the corrupt Jefferson and seems to have a clue about the real world, unlike the average GOP. He should come over to the good side if he wants to be reelected in 2010.
It only matters that the Dems GET IT DONE. Their only chance of losing in 2010 is dong nothing. Cool moment in CSPAN
Good for Joseph Cao.
Now, let's head to the saucer and make some more sausage.
@Ed -
Another decade? are you serious? More like a generation.
Who is "we"? As far as I can see the Democrats just guaranteed themselves a house majority for another decade.
Really? A legal requirement to buy overpriced junk insurance, plus a massive sellout of women's health, is going to inspire people to vote Democrat for a decade?
Can I have some of what you're smoking, please?
One final question - why was someone other than Pelosi in charge of the procedural motions during the entire period of debate leading up to the final vote? I thought that was her role. I'm new to this, this was the first time I've watched C-Span with interest in a long time.
Ed:
You must seriously be joking. I can see the Republicans running ads stating .. Democrats supported the trial lawyers but not the elderly .. Massive tax increases .. supports Big Pharma over you.
No Ed, the best case scenario is a loss of 'only' 30 seats in 2010 and probably more like 40-45. It will be 1994 all over again except that this bill is even worse than anything Hillary proposed to the point of almost being 'radioactive'. This is just like Bush's SS Private Accounts in 2005 and how well did they work out for his party?
BURT SAID:
Who is "we"? As far as I can see the Democrats just guaranteed themselves a house majority for another decade.
Really? A legal requirement to buy overpriced junk insurance, plus a massive sellout of women's health, is going to inspire people to vote Democrat for a decade?
Can I have some of what you're smoking, please?
No Sweetie, people don't vote "Democrat" they vote "Democratic". Trolls will be trolls.
Sausage tastes sweet, and it really is amazing to watch a democratic republic do its thing. These folks deserve a nice rest over Veteran's Day.
On to the Senate (or is that "To infinity and beyond"!
No Sweetie, people don't vote "Democrat" they vote "Democratic".
Not after tonight, they don't.
Sweet, another subsidy for doctors, lawyers, and insurance companies at taxpayer expense. How about a mandate that we all need to buy large screen TV's? No wonder the AMA is in the tank for this mess.
@NJ Conservative
But when people see their taxes not going up, elderly people not seeing their medicare cut, how is the Republican lie spiral going to keep going?
And the Dems supporting the peoples' right to seek redress of grievances will not hurt them much IMHO.
The Repub leadership will have two choices: make up new lies or start LEADING.
Should be obvious which one they'll pick, sadly.
No Sweetie, people don't vote "Democrat" they vote "Democratic".
Not after tonight, they don't.
you wish!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell it to President McCain.
And by the way Ed, you moron, "Vote Democrat" is indeed a legitimate campaign slogan. The namecalling from the right is when they call it the "Democrat party."
The next time you want to accuse someone of being a troll, you might want to be sure you know what you're talking about first, or you'll just make yourself look like an idiot. Again.
I believe in the end a number of vulnerable democratic party members were permitted to vote against the bill in order to not burn political capital in their districts.
Though it is hard to be dispassionate about something as personal as healthcare, tonight, watching CSPAN, I enjoyed observing the process of government.
Gack! The stench of troll droppings is overpowering all of a sudden.
It's almost as if on cue....
The people expect Congress to address the critical issues that face the country, and health care is at or near the top of the list. They don't expect the solution to be perfect. Once the program is implemented it will be popular, just like Medicare, and any issues will be fixed.
The risk for the Dems was in doing nothing. The tea party crowd will not reward the 39 Dems who voted no. They will just vote for Republicans.
To the honorable Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Michelle Bachmann, and Joe Wilson:
'YOU CRY!'
Signed,
Nancy Pelosi
Have a good night all. Be kind to one another I'm off to watch SNL.
I have yet to see anyone give a convincing explanation as to how a legal requirement to buy overpriced junk insurance, coupled with a massive sellout of women's health, is going to inspire people to vote for Democrats.
I'd love to hear an answer on that one.
This is somewhat unrelated. I have searched high and low online and keep finding conflicting information:
Suppose the Senate and House pass different versions of the health reform bill. It goes to conference committee and a compromise bill is forged. My question is: Is the conference bill subject to filibuster once more in the Senate? Or can they pass with a simple majority?
Anyone who can find a credible source with a firm answer, please link!
Just the obvious re: Cao. He beat frozen assets Jefferson 49.6 to 46.8 in LA's 2nd district on December 6, 2008, in a very, very, very low turnout election. A district that is a +28 Dem congressional district. How ironic that the most Dem district in the country is in LA, I digress.
Anyway, Cao knows he's toast next year, so he's just enjoying the ride, much like Christie in NJ, who will be toast in (4) years.
But it is nice he voted yea in favor of health care reform :) (30) years from now he can tell his grandchildren he was one of the few rational party of No! voters, who voted in favor of change in passing historic health care reform legislation.
carry on
Medicare popular? More like a Ponzi sceme that would make even Madoff blush. Few people complained about the cost of healthcare until Medicare introduced govt waste to the system. Now everyone is at the trough.
Looks like we have yet another Republican (Burt) who is pretending to be something else. Burt, say “Hi!” to your fellow concern-troll, NJ_Moderate, who is also so ashamed of his party that he disowns it on comment forums like this.
How do you guys expect to attract voters when you can’t even be up front regarding who you represent?
Burt: "Junk" insurance? For the 30 million or more without any insurance it will be far from junk; for most it will be the only insurance they will ever have had.
And I suppose the Boehner bill will inspire people to vote Republican? That was the most sorry-assed sham I've ever seen.
For months, the Republitrolls have been screaming, "Health reform is dead!" "Public option dead!"
It passes the house, and the Republitrolls scream, "Dems will lose 30 seats!" "50 seats!" "One million seats!" They were wrong before. We should believe them now?
Concern trolls: "Democrats bad. Never voting Democrat again." Yeah, like you ever did.
It is a great night for America.
cbcactuary…
What kind of health coverage do you have currently?
Some joker called into C-SPAN tonight vehemently opposed to any health insurance reform. The interviewer asked him what his health coverage was like, and he said “I can’t afford health insurance! The insurance companies want to charge me $700 a month, and there’s no way I can afford that.”
And the big ape opposes any change in that situation.
There is no end to the potential stupidity of the American voter.
Looks like we have yet another Republican (Burt) who is pretending to be something else. Burt, say “Hi!” to your fellow concern-troll, NJ_Moderate, who is also so ashamed of his party that he disowns it on comment forums like this.
Fuck off. I've been around here since the primaries last year. I was a consistent Obama supporter throughout the entire election. If you can't handle the idea that people on the left aren't happy with the Democrats, well, that's on you.
But if I'm just a troll, it should be very easy to answer my question, so I'll pose it again: How is a legal requirement to buy overpriced junk insurance, coupled with a massive sellout of women's health, going to inspire people to vote for Democrats?
Come on. Show your troll-stopping skills. Answer my question.
220-215. Three votes could have sunk it.
So, there are the two Dems that got elected on Tuesday plus the Republican from a heavily Dem district who got elected only because his opponent was a totally exposed crook, and who would all but definitely voted out if he'd voted no. Take away those votes and...
Thank you, NY Conservative Party, for helping put it over the top. May you succeed in knocking off any and all moderate Republicans in 2010 primaries.
Seriously, assuming something similar to this thing passes the Senate, what is your position as a Republican on health care in 2010?
You can't argue that it jacked up the deficit, nor can you argue that it didn't work, because it won't kick in until 2013. All you can do is run on a promise to repeal the sum-bitch before it takes effect, and even THAT is an empty promise because Obama would veto the repeal and even a tsumani scenario in 2010 won't provide the votes to overturn it.
The upside to that tack, of course, is that nobody will be benefitting from the thing in 2010 (or, for that matter, in 2012 either), so therefore anything you say about it cannot go counter to the anyone's direct experience.
The downside is that there will be at least 40-50 million people (and probably more if you count the unemployed who can no longer afford to maintain their private insurance) who will see the Republican Party voting against what is, for them, the only hope for getting health insurance any time soon. If the Democrats can get THOSE people to the polls, the Dems might actually gain seats.
It's not necessary to answer your hypothetical, Burt, since that is not the situation that is happening.
Now, answer this: How is a requirement that the moon turn blue and that we begin feeding seagulls to all people with red hair going to help the Republicans?
(Hint: that's not being required, either.)
" How is a legal requirement to buy overpriced junk insurance, coupled with a massive sellout of women's health, going to inspire people to vote for Democrats?"
I answered your question. It's not junk if you have none right now and little hope of getting any. It's easy to call a Big Mac junk food, but try not eating for a week and it will look pretty damn good.
cbcactuary…
Let me guess that the “actuary” part of your ID indicates you work for the insurance industry.
So forgive me for thinking that your opinions might be just a little lopsided.
Cheers to Representative Cao (R-LA) for his courageousness in saying no to the Party of No.
Boehner’s bill, like Boehner himself, was a joke. Reform has been on the table for nearly a year—the GOP waited until last week to put forward their alternative. Pitiful!
@shiloh
LA-2 is actually the 27th-most Democratic district in the country by Cook PVI, although it's the most Democratic in the South I believe, outside of south Florida. Funny that Cao has suddenly decided that he likes being a Congressman though.
@Burt
Funding to help people buy "junk" insurance (called "health" insurance in the real world) coupled with a strong public option to keep costs down will encourage people to vote Democratic.
The mandate was included to help private insurance stay afloat, ironically enough.
Although Obama initially campaigned against the mandate, he was always in favor of near-universal health care coverage.
Ensuring that everyone can access insurance will not hurt Dems, whatever labels you want to attach to the provision. But they do need to keep selling their plan to the public, so that people aren't susceptible to BS like "junk" mandate if that's what you meant.
It's not necessary to answer your hypothetical, Burt, since that is not the situation that is happening.
Yes it is. At 300% of poverty, the House bill requires you to spend 10% of your income on health insurance. Unless you get sick, of course, in which case you pay $10k/year plus 10% of your income.
And this is the House bill. The Senate is only going to make it worse.
I own an individual policy at the highest deductible I could find.
Btw, I encourage you and your fellow libs to jump on ehealthinsurance to quote prices on policies in IL (low regulation state) and Mass (Obamacare Jr.). IL has many competitors offering affordable choices, Mass has maybe 2 companies offering crappy policies at outrageous prices. Thats what we'll get nationally now--competitors will drop out and leave a few companies to hose the consumer.
Burt- I totally feel you, but don't cut off your nose to spite your face. This bill takes several steps forward. The electorate is not as intelligent, nor informed as we are at this point. With the way things looked in August, I am very thankful tonight. If the tea-baggers threat to take-over congress in 2010 falls flat, then reform, much more agreeable, will be passed. Don't help the imbecilic loud-mouthed fringe to further their dangerously uninformed agenda. This is a battle for the long haul....
coupled with a strong public option to keep costs down will encourage people to vote Democratic.
I agree. A strong public option would keep costs down.
Problem is, the House bill doesn't have a strong public option. The House bill has a crippled public option that's accessible to almost no one. Obama himself said that only 6 million people will be on it. That's less than 5% of the market, and thus insignificant as far as controlling costs.
You may have won the battle, but you will not win the war. This thing stands no chance of passing in the Senate, just like Cap and Tax.
----A dose of reality.
Over 40 Dems in districts won by Bush and McCain are now on the record. The 39 Dem who voted against this monstrosity trying to save their jobs are still Dems and will be featured side by side with Pelosi in ads next year.
CNN just issued a poll finding only 25% of Americans want to enact the Dem government health insurance bills before Congress. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/06/cnn-poll-public-wants-congress-to-keep-working-on-health-care/
The minority of doctors who belong to the AMA are in open revolt and are set to vote on a resolution to reverse their leadership's endorsement of Obamacare. http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/nov/07/revolt-american-medical-association-over-health-ca/
Pleasant dreams Democrats. The voters are waiting.
Incidentally, does anyone know the 39 Democrats against the bill? I can't find the roll call anywhere yet?
cbcactuary:
MA has no public option. That's why it is essential to have one.
I suppose if you've never been sick ever you be able to get a good policy cheap in IL. But, what if you're a diabetic or you had cancer (cured) 10 years ago, or even a bout of depression? In that case, I'll bet you'll either be turned down or quoted a price way higher than in MA.
Burt…
These remarks of yours suggest that you are reacting emotionally instead of intellectually—
♦ “Fuck off.”
♦ “…overpriced junk insurance…”
♦ “…massive sellout of women’s health…”
The only people pissed off tonight are Republicans and health insurers, and people dumb enough to be gulled into thinking reform is against their own interests.
If you object to the Stupak amendment the people who put it forward (i.e. the GOP) are the ones to talk to, not the Democrats. It’s what known as a “poison pill”, a weak-water attempt to kill the entire measure, but passed only to get the legislation through the House. It can (and will) be eviscerated in subsequent legislation.
So, have you complained to the folks in the GOP, who fostered the Stupak amendment, or is this the only place you stopped to piss tonight?
PlannedParenthood says that abortion costs are about $350–$900 in the first trimester (abortions past first trimester are rarely elective, so they would be covered if I understand the amendment), so it's hardly a major issue for anyone, unless you have multiple abortions each year, in which case you're doing it wrong.
I really doubt there will be many people not having abortions due to costs.
Burt, you didn't answer my question. If you actually care about health reform, you will.
Jacob -
Roll call here
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml
@ytownMetz
Well since there is no bill called "Cap and Tax," I doubt it would pass either. :-)
@DePalma
Well majorities support every provision in the bill, so the "fact" that a majority might not support the House bill, or even the imaginary "Dem government health care bill" is pretty much either meaningless or points only to ignorance.
In politics there are those who follow only (doctored) public opinion and those who lead and create public opinion. I hope against hope that the Democrats fall into the latter category but I'm glad the Republicans are eager to take the former.
These remarks of yours suggest that you are reacting emotionally instead of intellectually—
Um, no. I am perfectly rational about this. The House just passed a bill that requires people by law to pay private corporations huge amounts of money for junk health insurance policies.
Again - at 300% of poverty, the House bill requires you to pay 10% of your yearly income for health insurance. And that's if you don't get sick. If you get sick, you pay $10k/year plus 10% of your income.
Even if the Senate doesn't make it worse (which they no doubt will), how do you think people are going to feel when this law takes effect and they get their first bills for the health insurance that they're now required by law to buy?
Do you think they're going to be inspired to run out and vote for the politicians who passed the law that cost them such a huge amount of money?
Bart De Publican…
If you continue to use the Washington Times as a source of news you will continue to wander in the wilderness.
cbcactuary…
So—are you happy with your insurance premiums going up uncontrollably every year? Now try to imagine what would happen if you or a member of your family got into a health care situation that falls within the “catastrophic”. After you paid your deductible your insurer would pick up most of the tab afterward—but what do you think would happen to your premiums the next time you renewed? (Remember that insurance is only offered in one-year terms.) If your insurer didn’t drop you, what do you suppose your new premiums would be? If they dropped you, which today is perfectly legal, the only insurance you could subsequently get would contain an exclusion for the catastrophic medical condition your former insurer paid out for. Wouldn’t be much good as insurance then, would it?
What would you do?
What do you recommend to forestall someone such as yourself getting in such a fix?
No one (who has been following politics for more than a year) believed a perfect bill would be passed. It will be improved upon as tome goes by - because there will be something in place to improve upon (as opposed to passing nothing, which insures we would have to wait another 2 - 3 decades even to try again).
A start is a start. A start is a success. Not starting is a failure.
@shrinkers
Thanks! Looks like at least 6 or 7 votes worth of rebellion from the left flank among the Democratic conservative opposition to get to 39.
Also, who cares if Burt is reacting emotionally or seriously concerned about the bills limitations or concern trolling? His questions deserve consideration.
I would guess that PO availability will expand over time and still exert positive cost pressures on private insurance, and I wholly reject the idea that the mandate amounts to "junk" insurance, but the guy does have some good points.
This is the first time I've watched a vote in the House and I must say it was suspenseful. I wonder if there will be any come-uppance for the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill? Any in there who are chairs of committees and if so, will they lose the chairmanship? (I hope so.)
Heath Shuler evidently likes being a loser. A loser in the NFL, and now a loser in the House. Get bent, loser.
I'm not arguing there is no need for sensible reforms. Given the "public options" called Medciare and Medicaid are the major cause of our problems, I hardly think another govt plan is any silver bullet. Just masking the underlying costs with unlimited taxpayer money doesn't solve anything.
Maybe a sensible idea would be to work with AMA to increase the number of doctors. Nah, can't offend an interest group.
@Burt: A reasonable question. I'll take your political stance as you state it, which means I can discuss the matter with you rationally.
It all comes down to two things -- the level at which subsidies kick in, which decides affordability, and the presence of a public option.
If you require a man to buy insurance but set subsidies so low that he's not really able to afford it, you've created a true disaster. It is my impression that the Senate version isn't all that bad; I'm not sure what the House version does. Please correct me if you have more info about this than I do.
As for the public option, it's certainly not going to be what the left (which includes me) would want it to be, but even if it isn't, it will change the dynamics of the health insurance business. The two main strategies for the insurance companies have always been to insure the healthy and not insure the sick. Those strategies are currently being enforced by such tactics a rescission and by refusing to insure those with prior conditions who, for one reason or another, lose their employer based insurance. Those two strategies are certainly going to be blocked by any bill.
A third strategy is what's known as "cherry-picking," which consists of setting rates differentially so that sick people are charged more than healthy ones, and cutting rates for the latter as low as possible in order to attract them. To state the case in extreme form, drop rates to rock bottom for everyone under 40 while raising them for everyone over 50.
Right now, this will work for employer based insurance because employers will come to regard those in the higher-risk groups as less desirable hires,because they drive up the cost of the pool. They will, of course, try the same thing with a public option, trying to push higher-risk people into it in the hope that it will drive up public option premiums to the point where they can argue that they're offering a better deal than the government. In a handful of states where "co-ops" have been tried, they have been successful in using this strategy.
But fucking with the federal government in this manner is a different matter than doing it on a state-wide basis. Florida seashore homeowners can tell you what happens when a state tries to force an insurance company into doing something it doesn't want to do -- the company pulls out of the state and leaves everyone high and dry. But they could not do this with health insurance on a national level. With sufficient determination, the Feds could simply jack up the subsidies. Would YOU want to be a Republican Congressman arguing that 40-odd million people should be stripped of their health insurance -- especially since a large number of those 40-odd million have little or no hope of qualifying for affordable private insurance?
Remember, even if the cherry picking strategy works, it won't be obvious for several years, by which time a reservoir of people who now DEPEND upon government health insurance will be in place.
When the insurance companies describe the health care plan as a Trojan horse, they are correct to the extent that it WILL create a demand for its retention, to the point where if the choice is between expanding the program and/or its funding or killing it outright, the latter will no longer be politically possible after a few years.
It's ugly, I gotta agree with you there, but it IS progress and no, I don't see it leading to a Democratic debacle in either 2010 or 2012. To the contrary, if tonight's vote had gone the other way, the Democrats would have had to go into next year with nothing to show from the 111th Congress but an insufficiently strong stimulus program.
Props to Nancy Pelosi for getting it done. Now suck it up, Harry.
Burt…
People are going to vote for those politicians who followed through on what the voters support.
Any rational polling done on reform indicates people across the country, even the poor-white-trash super red states, overwhelmingly support it.
Please, where did you get your information about “junk” insurance policies? I know that’s one of the talking points of the opponents of reform, so forgive me for suspecting you are a stalking horse (modern term: troll) for their interests. Under this legislation any new policy written cannot exclude for pre-existing conditions, cannot drop enrollees once covered, cannot discriminate in the fifteen hundred ways insurers have been accustomed to discriminate.
So where’s the junk in that?
Bart DePalma, the Washington Times...really? Lol.
Jacob -
You are right, that the questions are reasonable. Or at least, the concerns are reasonable. I would have said the questions are reasonable, except that - for me, at least - the answers seemed obvious, and the questions appeared to be asked for purposes of spin rather than as honest questions. Perhaps the euphoria of the moment got to me - or the experience of having seen, over the decades. how these things work gives me more of a sense of calm.
Anyway, carry on Jacob - you're doing a great job, but I doubt Burt will be reassured.
BDP, I'm happy to see you put a brave face on. Stiff upper lip and all that.
CNN? Please! Most libs know that CNN is a Repub front and part of the Right Wing Propaganda Machine.
And if you're right about the AMA (which I doubt) then we'll know soon enough, hmm?
But then just yesterday your fellow traveller MPM guaranteed that the bill was DOA. Strongly suggests you chaps are all bark and no bite.
Re: cbcactuary
"Maybe a sensible idea would be to work with AMA to increase the number of doctors. Nah, can't offend an interest group."
Actually, there is actually a push in the medical community right now to encourage more primary care doctors to enter the practice. My school itself was founded to create doctors to serve underserved communities. Granted, not all will, but we garner our experience at community health centers throughout the country, which offer healthcare to all on a sliding fee scale. A great federal program, actually, with great physicians that I have had the opportunity to work with. I believe the AMA and AOA are actively trying to increase primary care physicians, however, many primary care residencies have lost their funding in recent years. Residency funding has remained stagnant since the 90s, so it is impractical for many of the good programs to sustain their residencies. Also, a lot of doctors don't see the appeal in primary care, choosing instead the more lucrative fields such as the subspecialties and surgery.
Karen: There'll be 0 consequences for the dems who voted against the bill, and that's fine.
I guarantee you that what happened is Pelosi got a bunch of the Dems to just agree to vote for the bill, and the 39 who voted against it plus a few more to agree to delay their votes until it passed or needed more "yay" votes then if it passed, they were allowed to vote against it.
And you know what? that's fine! What matters is the bill passing. The Democrats want the bill to pass but for their vulnerable members to vote against it, because that's precisely the best option for the caucus as a whole - they get the bill passed, and they probably keep a few seats as D they might've lost to the Rs otherwise.
@shrinkers
Yeah the euphoria has a powerful effect, and I took Burt's posts as purely spin myself at first, as the GOP-spun "junk" insurance reference caught me off guard.
Though in fairness to you I should note that I meant to address the second part of that post to everybody, not to suggest that your posts to Burt were especially dismissive.
And good work on your many well-reasoned arguments as well.
cbcactuary…
OK, since you have declared that “Medicare…[is] the major cause of our problems” I hope you will elaborate.
Please outline your alternative to Medicare, which has worked just dandy for the people on it for 44 years.
If you want merely to abolish it, then you must be in a pretty lonely corner, because even the most rabidly conservative members of Congress think that would be a very bad idea.
By the way the CBO estimates that between one quarter and one-third of premiums paid to private insurers are pissed away in overhead and waste ($300 billion a year, and climbing.). The worst waste estimate I have ever seen for Medicare is 14%. Most evaluations put it a lot lower. Plus, Medicare is much cheaper because it doesn’t pay profits to shareholders, nor does it pay outrageous salaries to executives like private insurers do.
Medicare has paid for itself entirely since enacted in 1965. How is that a failure? When people can’t afford private insurance and whose employers do not provide it—that is a failure, in fact it is a disaster.
Jacob…
Yes, when Burt told me to “Fuck off” I figured the discussion had strayed beyond the bounds of civility…
"So, have you complained to the folks in the GOP, who fostered the Stupak amendment"
Stupak is a Democrat.
I saw the list of 39 dems who voted no. Kucinich was on it. I assume he voted against it because it wasn't progressive enough? If so, I assume (like Cao) he waited till the yeas got to 218 before voting?
NJ_Moderate is a concern troll from way, way back.
Burt's no NJ_Moderate and is back for a second run. From the first...
He'd better start blasting the hell out of McCain now. Keating Five. Cheating on his first wife. His senior moments. His idiot moments. His outright lies. And on and on. The Obama campaign's new motto had better be "Nothing is off limits." Otherwise, they are going to lose this election.
We are who we are.
Stupak is a Democrat. I'm actually a bit surprised that that's all the leadership had to do in public to get the necessary votes. Really nicely done as the Republicans had no option but to support the amendment and, by doing so, assure passage of the amendment and the bill.
In general, conference reports are subject to filibuster. Unlimited debate is the rule (with an occasional exception) in the Senate. Carry on.
Given the first cohort of Medicare recepient paid virtually nothing into it, I'm not surprised they loved it. Just like Madoff's first investors. Eventually though someone is left holding the bag as the system crashes. Coming soon.
Well, we should just get rid of all private companies--too much overhead. Lets have GM be the public car option--no need to spend all that nasty "overhead" competing with Toyota. Sometimes overhead is a good thing. Last I checked, Medicare has $60B in annual fraud. They could use some more "overhead" to track this money down
Delorian…
You are correct, Stupak is a Democrat, but this was a put-up by the GOP who found a nervous—and therefore willing—Democrat to put his name on the amendment.
Did you watch the interviews on C-Span afterward? Stupak said his piece, then was followed by a steady stream of Republicans with the same old talking points.
I'm with you, burt. Anyone who thinks the insurance companies are unhappy about this bill are somewhere out there in la-la land. Who in the world would be unhappy about 40 million mandated new customers without any cost-controlling coming along for the ride?
I'm hoping beyond all hopes that this bill fails, and no, I'm not a conservative or a teabagger or a republican or a libertarian or anything like it - i'm a liberal progressive, so save that line of attack for someone else.
@Delorian -- Cao voted for it because he has no hope of being re-elected in a heavily Dem district if he didn't. He got in last time because his opponent was a known crook, but against any reasonably honest Dem, he'd be toast, since his Neew Orleans district is one of the places where the number of uninsured is high.
Which is how politics is supposed to work, que no?
cbcactuary…
Well if you’re just going to write nonsense I guess you’re not really interested in discussion. Go over here, you’ll feel more at home.
Just trying to help…
\Kris-
Is there an option to lower requiremnets for primary care (ie less/cheaper school)? I read somewhere that number of docs is lower than 40 years ago, in spite of population increasing. Not sure how much AMA keeping numbers down to spike salries has to do with it. Docs in US make 4 times in Europe
BDP, always sooo negative ~ let's put on a HAPPY FACE !!!, shall we ...
Keep hope alive!
@Maxwell;
"...so save that line of attack for someone else."
Dear Maker, please save us from our idiot bretheren!
Owens (NY-23) voted yea. It passed by 5, so his vote was not decisive, but it is nice a have a bit of breathing room.
@Zev
Owens (NY-23) voted yea.
Just one more happy result of the teabaggers running their own candidates.
I just emailed my new DEM Rep Kosmas [FL-24]
she caved and voted NO
I notified her that as far as I was concerned she would not get another dime from me or any further support in the future, and that she might as well change her party to GOP.
This NO vote I believe will seal her fate to lose in 2010.
She proved she has no deep principles imho, so I will sit out the local congressional election or maybe vote for a 3rd party candidate in 2010.
this area is not MS or AL or GA, it is Orlando-Daytona Beach so there is no rational excuse - she sucked
Wish I was in Grayson's district next door...
extremely disappointed about her caving - BUT happy the DEM caucus came through
ZEV
actually it only passed by a margin of 3 votes [218 were required to prevail]
so Owens vote was certainly icing on this cake as was Cao's [R]
the key was winning the CA-10 special election so that Garamendi could also vote YES for the 218th.
actually, winning all the recent special elections has been important.
but my DEM Rep caved...
DCM in FL…
My Rep is Henry Waxman, so there was no doubt about his vote.
It’s very good to express your outrage. The trouble as I see it is that certain DEM representatives get very nervous in the face of all the screaming and shouting from the right, and are anxious not to offend anybody. But they need to know—they weren’t elected because the voters really wanted a Republican. They voted for a Democrat, so act like one.
@Pragmatus
Stupak is a longtime House member (I think he dates back to mid-90's) and is staunchly pro-life to the point that he's been endorsed by National Right to Life Committee.
Sure he was the front man, here. But he's doing what he does.
@Burt
I remember a Burt who used to come around here in '08. I always thought of Burt as an extreme left winger. I say that not as an insult, just a friendly advice as if I was an around the block old man giving advice to a youthful idealist.
Not all battles can be won. The main objective is winning the war. Just like in real battles, sacrifices must be made. No matter how hard the decision might be, it is all for the greater good.
Medicare and Social Security started in their infancy much in the same manner public option is trying to become birthed(?). Without it not first taking a lung full of air, it cannot grow into anything else.
I empathize with you. I too feel much was given to compromise. I am not as happy as I could be with the passage of this bill. However, it has life. It has potential, much like each newborn that comes into this world has potential. Tonight, I feel like I am a proud parent willing and able to nurse this wonderful gift to us. Help it grow and watch it fulfill the hopes and dreams we have for it.
Perspective is the key. So many have tried and failed these past sixty years to pass health care reform. We have witness these past couple of hours history right in front of our very eyes! Against all odds, with everything Republicans had to through against this bill (real and imagined), it willed itself to live.
Burt, don't abandon it now because it doesn't look the way you imagined it to look. Imagine how it will be when it matures.
Yes, I agree, Republicans will spin, spin, spin, and spin some more. This bill is not perfect. But we must fight for it so it can achieve its potential.
PRAG
I KNOW my DEM Rep fer crissakes, and I thought she was at least moderate [if not an open progressive]
she is a local realtor who used to be a DEM in the FL state legislator [but got term limited out]
so I guess you THINK you know someone, and I though once it was gonna pass she would come through
what I do not get is that does she really believe that playing this as a blue dawg will protect her in 2010 ??? no way, the GOP are gonna eat her alive regardless - or she could have taken a real stand and fought back...
IF she was a GOP, then fine - serves our district right for electing her.
a damm shame - so as far as I am concerned she can suffer the consequences.
I noted that the entire CT delegation voted YES - wonder what mischief Joe Liebermein will cause
AGH... through=throw. Sorry.
PS the measure of a person is not in the size of their shoe, but in the path their steps take.
GEN
I seldom bother to correct my typos unless the thought gets completely turned around...
in my last post I dropped a 'T' where 'though' = 'thought'
but it is late... and this is the new age of txtn... where spellin' ain't what it used 2 b
LOL... DCM, I'm just an old school perfectionist. Please, don't hold it against me =D
By-the-way, good luck with your Rep.
I have the misfortune of having Blunt as a Rep. No hope of replacing him with a progressive in 2010. Even though he is running for Senate, and this will be an open seat next year, seven Repubs have already filed as candidates, but not one Dem. Los siento mucho.
Genl Sherman…
Yes—this is the first time a successful fight has been mounted against the entrenched health insurance interests. There are still a lot of opponents out there, but most of them are the ignorati that the GOP knows how to appeal to, like that doofus I quoted earlier who was mad as hell that he couldn’t afford health insurance but was dead set against reform.
It’s not over yet. My senators (Boxer and Feinstein) are behind reform with a public option, but getting it through the full Senate should be very interesting. Personally I think the public option will be in the final bill. It won’t be perfect legislation, but it will make the insurers and Bart De Palmas and Walkers fit to be tied. At worst it can provide a solid foundation on which to build.
Gen Sherman:
The measure of a person is not only the path their steps take, but also what (And who) they step on while taking that path.
...But the comments in the previous article are getting a bit unwieldy...
LOL. Nate, you may need a new thread yet again.
PRAG
the sheer vile hypocrisy of the GOP claiming during the debate that this reform will harm Medicare is just beyong the pall...
I mean, if they had their way there would be no SSA or Medicare or Medicaid or IRS
just plenty of military spending + wars & corporate giveaways...
but claiming they are protecting Medicare ??? the elderly really are that easy to fool, when they should remember that it was passed after a similar long hard fight IN THEIR [our] LIFETIME !!!
DCM…
That’s what’s so remarkable, that the GOP can lie to people so baldly and be believed. Once they had created the (false) impression that they were the party of fiscal discipline and low taxes, all the dummies lined up behind them. I’ll bet half the toothless morons being seen, on my tax dollar, in any emergency room would violently oppose any health insurance reform simply because of the dishonest (not to mention dishonorable) way it was sold to them.
Prag,
Exactly, it will not be perfect, far from it, but at least it will provide the foundation for meaningful advances.
Once it is placed into law, no one, not even Ronald Reagon incarnate himself (Saint Ron as nutwingers have started to call him) will be able to pry it away from the populace.
The Senate will prove to be much more difficult than the House. The first step is not to let it be postponed past this month. We are too close, have come too far, and have waited far too long. This is the time. We cannot allow them to continue to obstruct and destroy.
It must be passed now, no matter the cost. If I was a progressive Sen. in a right leaning state, this would be the moment I was waiting for. I would place everything I have on the line to get it to pass. Lincoln, Baucus, Nelson and all the others need to understand they will not win by playing Republicans. Especially with the tea baggers now in charge of them. They will show no mercy, give no asylum.
@Matt,
Well sir, "the path their steps takes" implies what (or who) they are stepping on.
@Sacto Joe,
try actually expressing why you disagree with me instead of resorting to immaturity.
I listened to Eric Cantor standing on the floor of the House, telling lies. It is stunning to hear. And as Pragmatus said, that these people are believed is almost criminal.
Blogger Opus 132 said...
"...(especially one not mentioned here tonight,namely the ridiculous start date of 1913.)"
Er, 2013 is when it would start, right. 1913 is about when this whole debate started.
doesn't even reduce absolute value of premiums outside of subsidies and rebates.
Medicare and Social Security started in their infancy much in the same manner public option is trying to become birthed(?)
I appreciate the tone of your post. But, I'm sorry, comparing this bill to Medicare and Social Security is ridiculous. Again, the House just voted to force everyone in the country to give money to private, for-profit corporations. Have you all got your heads around that yet? That is something that the Republicans never contemplated, not even in their wildest, most orgiastic, corporatist dreams.
This bill sucks. Period. And for those of you who are saying "Well, we can improve it later," the odds are just as good if not better that it's going to be made worse later on, not better. For example, if you don't think that the (already inadequate) subsidies are going to be the first thing the Republicans go after if and when they retake power, you're just incredibly naive.
Oops! Thanks Jacob.My egregiously wrong date is too embarrassing to let stand.So here's a corrected post.
------------------------------------------
Thank you Gen Sherman for your 1:43 AM post.It describes the present political realities very accurately.
So much so,that if I were Rahm Emanuel I would bludgeon Harry Reid into introducing the House bill in the Senate and passing it under the reconciliation process with the votes of 50 senators (plus Biden,if needed).
That way we'd avoid the potentially horrific congressional conference routine with it's subsequent votes and filibuster opportunities.Once passed,a continuing effort could be made to improve the final bill's failings (especially one not mentioned here tonight,namely the ridiculous start date of 2013.)
The House passing the health care reform bill is all well and good, but sadly ~ Phil Ivey was eliminated in 7th place at the WSOP ...
Let's shuffle up and deal!
Godammit Burt,
You're either a sockpuppet masquerading as a disgruntled liberal or a really, really left wingnut. I suspect the former. You sound a lot like one of our other trolls.
But let's say for a moment that I think your concerns are genuine. You're absolutely....
You know what, get the fuck out of here. Go find your hero that will give you the panacea that you desire. Good luck in the wilderness.
I really don't belive this but my word verification is 'curse'. Not kidding.
Burt,
You cannot ignore history...
I'm sorry, comparing this bill to Medicare and Social Security is ridiculous[...]This bill sucks. Period. And for those of you who are saying "Well, we can improve it later," the odds are just as good if not better that it's going to be made worse later on, not better.
Social Security and Medicare were made better. So much so that Repubs (lies that they may be) are using the argument of Medicare being marginalized to their advantage.
I'll give you the House just voted to force everyone in the country to give money to private, for-profit corporations.
Yes, this is true, unfortunately, as I understand the bill. The fact of the matter is that a public option is one step closer to reality. I don't know what to say to help you understand this is for the benefit of the American public.
This bill is definitely not what I had hoped for, nor most of the progressives on this blog, but it is much farther than anything that has been accomplished since Teddy Roosevelt first envisioned it. Can you at least understand that much?
Does that make it any better? No, it does not, but it is a step in the right direction.
Now, you are making me hate myself because I feel like I sound like a sell out. No matter. I see a bigger picture much larger than anything beyond just me. Beyond today, beyond tomorrow.
Look back at what has brought us to this point in time, Burt. What could have made it any different? The world has hated us these past eight years, our economy has collapsed, two wars with no end in sight, our debt has risen beyond any sort of comprehension. But here we are, debating over universal health care being mandated with subsidies. Whether or not it went far enough. Damn it, I take it. We've come a long way.
One step at a time or we might just trip over ourselves.
Playin' Hold em' now, yo.
the democrats can manage to gain support for bills like this precisely because they have you all convinced that anything they do is a 'step in the right direction.'
it seems telling that most of your reactions to this opinion are angered cries to 'fuck off' or the idea that it will magically become better at some point in the future.
The word verification program has a peculiar sense of humour. Other programs, such as the Captcha program gives random words from real documents (which serves the dual purpose of translating older documents into recognizable text like a human OCR program). But doesn't it seem like there's a real person with an ironic acumen behind our system?
wv: press. see what I mean?
Maxwell said...
the democrats can manage to gain support for bills like this precisely because they have you all convinced that anything they do is a 'step in the right direction.'
Sorry to break it you, but unlike right wing zombies, progressives do have a mind of their own capable of formulating their own thoughts. Thank you for participating.
You've kind of got it backwards, Maxwell. It's a "step in the right direction" when elected representatives do something close to what we elected them to do.
Opal,
I would be remiss if I didn't say, "Your welcome."
I have had the pleasure of reading your comments as well. Unfortunately, we never directly commented towards each other. Lets not wait another year or so to communicate again.
you assert that you can think for yourself, but refuse to believe anyone that does not believe the democratic party has their best interests in mind can be a left winger. lol.
Maxwell said...
you assert that you can think for yourself, but refuse to believe anyone that does not believe the democratic party has their best interests in mind cannot be a left winger. lol.
That is absolutely not what I said. Continue on your mistaken path and enjoy you life. Don't misquote me and expect a reasonable discussion.
What you said obviously implies I am not a progressive.
Maxwell, although the left-wingnut side of our party is only about 30% as a whole (similar to the 'right-wingnut' side of the Republican party), they are overrepresented on this website.
If they got out of their cocoons and actually traveled around the country and had a clue of what the majority of 2010 and 2012 voters want, it would certainly NOT be this bill. They probably haven't even read more than 20 pages of the bill so their opinions are just the DNC's talking points.
The House bill is DOA since I doubt that 15 Dem senators will sacrifice their careers to get this version passed. No one outside of the left-wingnuts of our party, Big Pharma and the trial lawyers wants this bill.
As everyone knows, ALL government programs cost exponentially more than the original estimate (see Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak, Education, etc.) The House is gone, do we really need to lose the Senate and Presidency in 2012 as well?
A bill that prevents companies from dropping people who fall sick is much better than nothing.
Anyone who is complaining if their particular Democratic congressperson voted No is missing the point. No doubt Pelosi had enough votes for passage lined up and then allowed the rest of the Democrats to vote No if they felt they needed to appease a majority of the folks back home ... except maybe for some "progressives" such as Kucinich, who voted against the bill for his own little purist reasons.
If the bill had failed to pass, then holding Democratic No votes responsible would have been appropriate.
That's politics. Hey, the bill passed, and that is what matters.
NJ-
Good to hear the opinions of a sensible non-socialist Democrat.
The vast number of people get coverage thru govt or their employer where no one is singled out for health issues. However, the cost is too high. This is where reform efforts should've been focused
BTW...insurance companies don't drop sick people or charge them more. Works great to demonize but its a myth.
Post a Comment