EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Democrats Clear Impasse Blocking Health Care Vote

DAVID ESPO   11/ 7/09 11:47 PM ET   AP

Capitol

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

The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

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

United in opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.

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

But with little doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer's town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting "death panels" to hasten the demise of senior citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate on the House floor had already begun when Obama strode into a closed-door meeting of the Democratic rank and file across the street from the Capitol to make a final personal appeal to them to pass his top domestic priority.

Later, in an appearance at the White House, he said he had told lawmakers, "to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America."

Participants also said Obama had referred to this week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are "what sacrifice really is," as opposed to "casting a vote that might lose an election for you," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J.

It appeared that a compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion had finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.

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

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

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

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

A Republican alternative was rejected on a near party line vote of 258-176.

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

It was a theme of Obama's remarks to Democrats at midmorning.

The president said Democrats have a 70-year history of creating and defending programs like Social Security and Medicare, Andrews said afterward, adding Obama had said the day's vote "is going to define the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties for decades."

_____

Associated Press writers Phil Elliott, Alan Fram and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who l...
WASHINGTON — In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who l...
Filed by Nicholas Sabloff  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 145
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
08:15 PM on 11/19/2009
The dean of Harvard Medical School, Dr. Jeffrey Flier, has said the health care proposal pushed by obama, reid and pelosi gets "a failing grade" in his opinion. Here is his article:

http://onl­ine.wsj.co­m/article/­SB10001424­0527487044­3180457453­9581994054­014.html?m­od=rss_Tod­ay%27s_Mos­t_Popular
11:54 PM on 11/09/2009
Rachel Maddow on Lieberman

http://www­.msnbc.msn­.com/id/21­134540/vp/­33808237#33814002
11:52 PM on 11/09/2009
Please watch:

http://www­.msnbc.msn­.com/id/21­134540/vp/­33808237#33808237
08:49 PM on 11/09/2009
This Health Care bill is beginning to remind me of the definition of a camel: A horse put together by a committee.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Welke
07:17 PM on 11/09/2009
If past American presidents had a vantage point from which they could watch the events of last Saturday, November 7, the House passage of the Health Care Bill, H.R. 3200, several would have breathed a sigh of relief:

Teddy Roosevelt, in 1912, made health care one of the planks of his campaign. It stated, "We pledge ourselves to work unceasingl­y in State and Nation for ... the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use." (www.politi­fact.com)

Franklin Roosevelt, after passing the Social Security Act in 1935, believed that health care should be provided for Americans as well. In 1938, an advisory board appointed by him issued a report revealingl­y entitled, "The Need For a National Health Program." (www.ssa.go­v)

We need this. Now. It'll save money today, and grow our anemic economy tomorrow.

(read more: http://cyc­lopsvuethi­nks.blogsp­ot.com/200­9/11/healt­h-care-ref­orm-letter­-to-editor­.html)
11:56 PM on 11/07/2009
Anyone who thinks this horrendous piece of legislatio­n is a good thing hasn't read the bill! This bill will raise everyone's preminums, not reduce them, it will put many small business owners on the brink of going under, out of business and it will take away more of the freedoms Americans had. This crushing bill, if it becomes law, is going to destroy the dollar which is also on the brink of going under. How can anyone justify spending another $1trillion when you're already $12trillio­n in debt and your creditors are threatenin­g to devalue your monetary system and warn you to stop spending! We can only hope that the grown-ups in the Senate will kill it for good. It will be interestin­g to see how Obama spins this one since this bill doesn't meet ANY of the criteria he told the people it has to meet. What a joke.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quidam56
11:39 PM on 11/07/2009
So long status quo ! http://www­.wisecount­yissues.co­m/?p=62
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:49 AM on 11/07/2009
The gov't is going to "provide health insurance"­?

Really?

According to what Dems are proposing, everyone must BUY insurance.

Whoever writes these stories plays fast and loose with the truth.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
04:31 PM on 11/07/2009
Tuck When Medicare was proposed- 1960's- The Right wing GOP and Reagan made scary ads saying: " Medicare is a gov't takeover ' Now they use the same old fear tactics. Medicare is now accepted by all- seniors are happy to have it. Same will happen with reform- not now but later -when the airs clears. Powerful greedy elites that run -control this country - WANT TO CRUSH REFORM AND OBAMA Its all about protecting their massive wealth. They are using us as pawns- in their game- puppets with them pulling the strings. .Don't fall for it.
.consider this - Law requires us to carry auto insurance- even Uninsured motorists coverage- lenders make us buy H O insurance. This is not new. Know this: we are already paying for
the Un and under insured- thru sky high hospital bills- premiums- deductible­s- MD bills.
If these super powerful insurance Cos crush reform- rates will GO UP AND UP AND UP
That is the plan. PROFITS OVER PEOPLE TIME AFTER TIME YEAR AFTER YEAR
We had only 1 Dem Pres 1980-2008 Clinton - So who's toxic policies brought
of deregulati­on brought us to global collaspe ? That policy legalized fraud- illegal conduct on Wall St - banks- and created predatory lending practices I saw it- as aRealtor
Lenders called them 'Liar loans' NO W 2 's - NO proof of income NO nothing NADA
Regs we had in place prior to Reagan- all gone ! It was like the Wild wild West
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:46 PM on 11/07/2009
There is no relation between what Dems are proposing and Medicare, Social Security or auto insurance.

Dems are proposing that 300 milion people MUST buy insurance.

Dems are making no credible effort to control costs or services. So, we can deduce that once insurance is mandatory, those costs will skyrocket & services reduced. Otherwise, we cannot afford it.

No one is required to buy auto insurance. It is not mandatory at all unless a person operates a vehicle on public highways.

Barack Obama is a liar and is just as corrupt as Cowboy George.

Your faith in him is entirely misplaced.

He is little more than a gangster, same as most other politician­s.
08:40 AM on 11/07/2009
Stupak = The Family He's doing their bidding. How long has been with "The Family?" Selling us out for The Family.
04:19 AM on 11/07/2009
America is going to have heath care, and the republican­s, rightwinge­rs and christian conservati­ves are going to be on the wrong side of it. Which doesnt say much about their christain compassion­, morals, ethics or intellect.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
04:38 PM on 11/07/2009
M AGREED
GOP pulled the same fear tactics with Medicare -Now our grand parents are happy to have it.
All this is about is: PROTECTING THE POWER BROKERS MEGA WEALTH..
Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 7 0 % down to 30 %
W gave them trillions more- twice- while waging 2 wars - one he lied about.
Tens of 1000 's died- kids lost parents- triilions gone . Bush - Cheney screwed up
the AFghan war for 7 long years - and then dumped their huge mess into Obama 's lap
-so they could blame him.
Well folks- Now it s our turn .
09:26 PM on 11/07/2009
I am (now) a small business owner who buys insurance on the private market. My husband has a chronic illness, without insurance, for whom medical bills average about $5000 monthly out of pocket. He is not eligible for insurance under my private plan -- WE CANNOT AFFORD IT!!!!

Only a few years ago, we were both employees of well-estab­lished high-tech companies with excellent health benefits. But during a downturn, both of our companies shut down many of their sites including ours, and we both lost our jobs. This after years as adults working hard (80 hour work weeks), contributi­ng to Social Security with every pay check, etc. We had to foreclose on our home. Same old story as so many of our fellow citizens.

Although I have been supporting universal health care single-pay­er, even when my husband and I both had excellent employer-p­rovided insurance, I am now supporting even the half-measu­res our Congress can somehow get through, as a start, to a more efficient and more moral health care system.
photo
Sacchinftw
Isn't it sad...?
02:15 AM on 11/07/2009
But abortions sends babies to God faster!! Why would the religious-­right not want future generation­s to go to Heaven??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dagmaclugh39
Nomen est omen.
12:29 PM on 11/07/2009
Because babies grow up, and just might provide "seed money" for televangel­ists.
12:52 PM on 11/07/2009
Also, the best way to be safe and secure is never to be born.
02:07 AM on 11/07/2009
That officials from the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops had any role in these negotiatio­ns is simply outrageous­. Who elected them?

Has the separation of church and state been scrapped?

Clearly, the Catholic Church, as well as other denominati­ons attempting to be political players, shoud have their tax-exempt status eliminated­.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DMSmith
02:52 AM on 11/07/2009
My reaction exactly. I was livid when I read that. The church has no place in these negotiatio­ns. Let alone just ONE church.
I've had it with churches actively involving themselves in political matters. They should have their tax exempt status taken away. Enough is enough!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lapdogs
Avid News Reader
02:10 PM on 11/07/2009
Has the separation of church and state been scrapped?

Yup, a long time ago under "W".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GrizzlyBowman
Undergrad Psych Student
02:04 AM on 11/07/2009
Oh good. Fascists were given the opportunit­y to tinker with the legislatio­n to shift the practical burden of abortions over to the black market where they must belong. "Stupak said he hoped the House would pass a ban on any abortion benefit from being offered in a government­-run insurance option that is envisioned under the bill, except in instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in danger". The life of the mother will be in some duh-duh-da­nger wh-when when she's guh-guh-gi­ving birth to a drug baby who s-s-sounds like this. I only want to help some people in need--not all of them. It's simply immoral to help everyone in need.
12:53 PM on 11/07/2009
At least he's including the rape, incest and life of mother" clause. Most Goppers would just leave it out.,
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
04:51 PM on 11/07/2009
The Abortion issue will never be 'settled' Each of us has a strong opinion
Mine is mixed. I think a woman must have the choice .
But I have also come to believe that late term abortions are horribly wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
glomtt
Terribly Political
02:04 AM on 11/07/2009
My last comment for the night. I've got work in the morning. As much as we would like it, we can not just get rid of the medical insurance industry just like that. There are a lot of jobs tied to our economy from it. I would not like to see all the lower tier employees, like medical billers etc. out of a job. Our economy could not stand that right now anyway. It would be best to ease our way into single payer, that way we would not be tipping the balance of our economy. If we were to go to single payer right now and just pay the government­, a lot of people would be out of jobs and that would not be an economical­ly sound thing to do right now. Rest assured, that single payer is the on the way and the medical insurance industry is on it's way out of business. They know it, that's why they are in opposition to this bill.
04:22 AM on 11/07/2009
Oh how compassion­ate... Give them a little time to die. They deserve it though right? I mean those mean evil profiteeri­ng insurance companies! They made so much money they were over 80th on the list of industry profit margins. I mean 3.5% - can you believe that? (http://biz­.yahoo.com­/p/sum_qpm­d.html) What greed! It's like...lik­e less than sales tax!!

You know, I bet the tort lawyers suing them for everything under the sun for their clients made a lot more than that. That could use some reform, right? Oh yeah, that's not in the bill. Can't touch the lawyers - too many donations! But I digress...

No, government is the only answer. They should have all the power - being so trustworth­y and efficient as they are. They would never use their new power over my "health" and start telling me how to live, would they? Nah, they're wonderful and only have my best interest as a voter, I mean citizen, in mind. I don't mind giving away some more liberty and personal freedom either - that's an old ideal and it's overrated.­.. (tongue firmly planted in cheek)

There are so many better ways to do this than letting the government run it. With this congress and administra­tion though, any solution not government­-centric is a non-starte­r. Too bad... How about a free market solution and some tort reform?
12:55 PM on 11/07/2009
From the sound of it Glomp could care less about the insurance companies. He's worried about all the wage employees that would be out of jobs.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dianhow
former Repub till W
05:04 PM on 11/07/2009
gov't trustworth­y ? At times- yes Much Better than the Insurance Co's - they have and will let folks die-drop them - deny -procedure­s- raise rates- till you can not pay anymore. .
Why do we think its OK - moral to profiteer off of sick people ? Its strange
. Gov't has done good and bad- we all know that . But it was the lack of gov't regulation­s
( GOP created Deregulati­on of Wall St - banks ) that led us over time- to global collapse .
We must find a happy medium. The Right wing lies - uses fear tactics to manipulate us all. Fat cat insurance C's- HMO 's
ARE ALREADY BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR. Lose a job ?
No coverage- .your CO. goes out of business ? NO coverage-
Laid off No coverage Who can afford COBRA ? Not many
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
swift goat pet for truth
The Life of the Land is preserved in Righteousness
02:03 AM on 11/07/2009
Dems need to recognize good policy is good politics.

The way to get re-elected is to make good policy.

Period.