Health Care Passes House

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Health Care Passes House stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

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

What's Your Reaction?

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.

Story continues below
advertisement

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.

Report Corrections
 
Comments
361
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next › Last » (7 pages total)
- dancucich I'm a Fan of dancucich 15 fans permalink

"I guess if the insurance industry can't sell enough insurance on its own, just have the government mandate it."
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­--------
Exactly!! this bill is terrible. I did not vote for mandatory insuance that people making less than 100k per year cannot possible afford.

I guess we end hunger the same way by mandating everyone must buy food or be fined and jailed.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:02 AM on 11/10/2009
- Veratruth I'm a Fan of Veratruth 18 fans permalink
photo

To the Dems. who voted against Health Care Reform: Are you among the well-insured folks who complain about the poor getting help? They say, "Let them fend for themselves. If they don't have car insurance, let them do without a car. If they don't have health insurance, let them fend off illnesses any way they can ... or else." Some of them are even called moochers. BUT, now that poor working people may be forced to buy some kind of health insurance, what do they say. "No, no, no. that is not right to take over someone's life that way." When will you make up your minds?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 11/09/2009
- theborg I'm a Fan of theborg 6 fans permalink

Mama Mia! That Pelosi is stacked. What a rack on that babe. I'd give up my stem cells to wrinkle her sheets. Sweet...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 11/09/2009
- itys I'm a Fan of itys 33 fans permalink
photo

I am curious, I was thinking about this over the weekend when I came across the following comments:

If the ObamaCare proposal is so good, why do you have to imprison people who don’t want to participate? We’ve heard from the best and the brightest all afternoon, and not a one of them have answered why it is that you have to criminalize people to coax them into a plan that’s so fabulous. It makes no sense. … The other side, with all due respect, with all the adjectives and all the flourishing speech, have failed to answer that question.

Why can’t they answer? They can’t. They need to force people into the system in order to spread the costs more evenly to everyone, which is why the House took the blatantly unconstitutional path of federal mandates for health insurance. They want to solve a problem involving 13% of the American population by burdening the 87% that doesn’t have the problem at all, rather than looking for a way to reduce health-care costs for 100%.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:11 PM on 11/09/2009
- Veratruth I'm a Fan of Veratruth 18 fans permalink
photo

Of course, working people may not want to participate in any kind of health insurance as long as they can get FREE health care. You don't make sense.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 11/09/2009
- dancucich I'm a Fan of dancucich 15 fans permalink

"Of course, working people may not want to participate in any kind of health insurance as long as they can get FREE health care. You don't make sense."
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----
You sound like a repub; who gets free healthcare??????

To the contrary, *you* don't make sense.
Mandating insurance takes away a consumers
right to say no to increased premiums, and outrageously
high deductibles

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:30 AM on 11/10/2009

Well, at least the article's title says "health care passes House" and not "health care REFORM passes House"...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 11/09/2009
photo

Constitution . . . bye bye.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 11/09/2009
photo

uh, we said goodbye to that when Bush started wiretapping us without warrants

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 PM on 11/09/2009

Try reading the constitution. Look up a supreme court ruling called Plessy v Furguson for starters. Congress has the right to regulate all interstate commerce. Approve of the goals/costs/etc of the health care bill or not, agree or disagree with Obama's agenda, but what's being done is very much within the black-letter law of the constitution.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 11/09/2009
photo

"In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a Louisiana law mandating separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites on intrastate railroads was constitutional. This decision provided the legal foundation to justify many other actions by state and local governments to socially separate blacks and whites."

THIS case?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 PM on 11/11/2009
photo

This is crazy . . . now the government is receding a woman's right to choose w/an attachment that poor women can't get abortions with gov. insurance? What, now the gov. is playing doctor? What is up.

This was just another way for the right to life (only in the case of rape etc.) to colonizer of woman's reproductive health especially the disenfranchised women. Are they also going to include no coverage for Vasectomies? I don't' think so since it is a patriarchal system with men not being worried about how many women they knock up. Machismo at it's best. Double standards and discrimination in health care.

I am floored by this piece of mess of a bill.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 AM on 11/09/2009
- mcmutter I'm a Fan of mcmutter 94 fans permalink
photo

medicare works, and the GOP can;t get around that fact....

plus everybody loves it

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 AM on 11/09/2009
- oldguru I'm a Fan of oldguru 26 fans permalink
photo

If we had medicare for all, many problems would be solved. the risk would be spread by adding the young, healthy population, and it would solve the shortfall in medicare funds that accrued when Bush got part D past without any way to pay for it. Everybody would be covered as individuals without being tied to employer insurance programs. The most crucial thing is that the cost of health care delivery could be controlled by a single payer. Insurance reform is only the beginning of controlling costs. Hospitals and doctors are going to have to get way more efficient than they are now. As it is with the insurance industry, there is no incentive to practice good, efficient medicine that is in the best interests of the patient.

Did we have this kind of uproar when the buggy whip makers and the wagon makers got put out of business by the advent of the auto? NO we did not. The Insurance executives will have to put their wonderful brilliance to work on some other endeavor.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 PM on 11/09/2009

healthcare is an inalienable right not a privilage, end of discussion

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 11/09/2009

How can you even THINK of a law that delivers us into the MOUTHS OF THE WOLVES?

1. We all MUST buy insurance
2. Insurers have NO INCENTIVE to improve (no public option, no monopoly exemption)
3. NO TORT REFORM

......HHHOOOWWW IS THIS BETTER FOR THE CITIZENS????

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 AM on 11/09/2009

You apparently cannot please everyone. Every civilized nation that has universal care has a mandatory health care where everyone participates, the ones who cannot afford it get subsidies, the risks are spread amongst the whole population. That is why it is called universal. And it works. You just have to watch Fontline tonight. It is airing a program about universal health care in Japan, Britain, Germany, Taiwan, and Switzerland . Why can't we americans achieve what other countries have succeeded in in doing? aren't we the ones who always brag that we are the strongest, the richest nation in the World?

What is wrong with forcing insurance company to accept everyone regardless of medical history? what is wrong with forbiding them of denying coverage for preexisting conditions? Why would it be wrong to have more choice in the form of a government plan next to the private plans? do we have a lot of choice under the present conditions.? Our premiums are becoming bigger than our mortgages, insurance companies play God by withholding care to the already insured or denying it altogether so that their CEO's can get their million dollar paycheck
.
A lot of people outside of the US who are following what is happening with the health reform debate are just shaking their heads as they cannot understand our logic. For God's sake, even Israel, who gets billions of aid from us, has universal and compulsory health care.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 AM on 11/09/2009

the reason we dont have universal heathcare is because we dont have god fearing represenatives,but we do have a lot of hipocrits

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:56 AM on 11/09/2009
- mcmutter I'm a Fan of mcmutter 94 fans permalink
photo

insurance companies will not surrender their billions in profits and perks....

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 AM on 11/09/2009
- greihing I'm a Fan of greihing 2 fans permalink
photo

The only smart choice would ave been "Medicare for all". People who are poor are not going to use their subsidies to pay for insurance. They are going to use it for rent, gas, electricity and food. Then to turn around and fine them is ludicrous.

If you have not watched "Food INC" you need to do so. This situation is a parallel to that. It is major legislation favoring the corporate over the individual. Next election: Vote for the new guy.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 AM on 11/09/2009
- swisskabab I'm a Fan of swisskabab 5 fans permalink

I regret supporting Obama and have never supported Republican.

This woman and Obama needs to be brought down. He just turned out to be just another anti-American
politician like Bush.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 AM on 11/09/2009
- swisskabab I'm a Fan of swisskabab 5 fans permalink

I reget supporting Democrat and have never supported Republican.

So OBAMA/PELOSI have been batting for the health insurance industry all along.

THIS IS A SCAM. THEY JUST DELIVERED 40 MILLION NEW CUSTOMERS TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY AT TAXPAYER COST. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS ILLEGAL!!!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 AM on 11/09/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next › Last » (7 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect