Health care bill clears the House
The lights burn inside of the House of Representatives side of the U.S. Capitol late Saturday night, Nov. 7, 2009 in Washington as the health care bill is debated. Alex Brandon/AP |
Buy photos
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
November 8th, 2009
October 29th, 2009
October 23rd, 2009
October 15th, 2009
October 13th, 2009
WASHINGTON — In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation 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 late Saturday night cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress. But the measure faces a tougher battle in the Senate, where more than a simple majority is needed for passage and several moderate Democrats still have reservations.
Obama praised the House in a statement and said he is "absolutely confident" that the Senate will pass its version of the legislation. "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year," he said.
The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the United States' eligible population having insurance. The United States is the only developed nation that does not have a comprehensive national health care plan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of the government's Social Security pension program in 1935 and Medicare health insurance for the elderly 30 years later.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.
At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.
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 let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed."
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.
From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid 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."
Senate Democrats will need 60 out of 100 votes to end debate and bring legislation to a final vote, and several moderate Democratic senators still have reservations.
If the Senate does pass a bill, it would have to be reconciled with the House version by a panel of lawmakers from both chambers before the legislation is put up for final approval.
Nearly unanimous in their opposition, minority House 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 Republican Rep. Candice Miller, 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.
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.
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.
A Republican alternative to the Democrats' House bill was rejected on a near party line vote of 258-176.
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."
The U.S. government provides coverage for the poor, elderly and military veterans, but most Americans rely on private insurance, usually provided through their employers. But with unemployment climbing above 10 percent, many Americans are losing their health insurance when they lose their jobs. At the same time, the deepening budget deficit has made it difficult for lawmakers to support costly new programs.
Associated Press writers Phil Elliott, Alan Fram and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
barefoot wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:20 PM:
c1067 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 9:29 PM:
megapixel wrote on Nov 7, 2009 10:01 PM:
Good riddance to the death panels manned by the insurance companies! "
c1067 wrote on Nov 7, 2009 10:24 PM:
hawkeye wrote on Nov 7, 2009 11:02 PM:
Bottom line is, you can't always blame current problems on whoever is currently in office, because problems often have their origins way before their time in office. And the unemployment mess is a direct result of our economic mess, which is a result of other bad decisions that started way back when and I think most people would agree with that. "
tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Nov 7, 2009 11:29 PM:
First of all the unemployment rate was headed to 10% regardless of what party won the presidency, and thats directly related to the 8 years of the Bush presidency. I seem to remember when Clinton was president unemployment reached a record low of 3.9%. Also megapixel is right about the war in Iraq. The Bush administration spent over a trillion dollars in Iraq, and you tell me, What does this country have to show for it? Show me some examples of how that made this country better? Think of what that trillion dollars couldve done if it was injected into OUR economy, or spend on medcial care for THE TAX PAYERS of THIS COUNTRY. "
Hear Ye wrote on Nov 8, 2009 12:13 AM:
rogers wrote on Nov 8, 2009 12:47 AM:
NapaSean wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:02 AM:
Can we pass a law that auto insurers can't charge more for pre-existing conditions? Then I can get a $100 a month policy and have my transmission, shocks and clutch replaced.
It costs more to provide health care to these people. I'm not saying they shouldn't have access to care, but I don't get the righteous indignation about asking the question "Who's going to pay for it?"
If your answer is that they shouldn't have to pay for it, then the only other possiblility is that society pays for it. "
cop105 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 4:03 AM:
badheadache wrote on Nov 8, 2009 4:06 AM:
matthew0017 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 4:39 AM:
As far as a conection between the shift of power in the congress- It takes a 2/3rds majority to have real congressional power, when the "other side" has the White House. You should study up on the workings of Washington if you're going to call people on it.. "
matthew0017 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 4:47 AM:
nappalachia wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:32 AM:
Bauhausfan wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:32 AM:
Texas, for example, has adopted approaches to controlling health-care costs while improving choice, advancing quality of care and expanding coverage. Consider the successful 2003 tort reform. Fewer frivolous lawsuits have attracted record numbers of doctors to the state as medical malpractice insurance premiums dropped by half. Christus Health, a large Catholic nonprofit system with a significant presence in Texas, spent about $100 million on liability defense payments in 2003. Last year, Christus spent $2.3 million on such payments. Much of that savings has gone into expanding health-care services in low-income neighborhoods.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504328.html
Texas must be a health care utopia right?
Wrong.
Texas is ranked 46th in overall health care in the U.S.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Charts-and-Maps/State-Scorecard-2009/DataByState/State.aspx?state=TX
25% of the residents of that state are uninsured.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?ind=125&cat=3&rgn=45
Of course they have no solution at all except to keep things exactly the same and let those states figure things out exactly like Texas has. As you can see above, Texas is one prime example of a state that has it's health care act together. "
misfit wrote on Nov 8, 2009 7:39 AM:
jfz wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:11 AM:
kelspapa wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:14 AM:
1775, US Postal Service, now broke.
1935, Social Security, now broke.
1938, Fannie Mae, bankrupt.
1964, War on poverty, we are broke.
1965, Medicare, Medicaid, broke.
1970, Freddie Mac, broke.
2008,2009, TARP, 10.2 to 17% unemployment.
2009, Cash for clunkers. Wasted TARP monies.
Do you really think the government can handle the health care system? Come on do you?????????? "
ping wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:18 AM:
Mike Thompson was not among them. If anyone from Mike's office is reading this - Please advise him to never self-describe himself as a Blue Dog. That would be to insult our intelligence. "
freeport56 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:34 AM:
c1067 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:41 AM:
lgs wrote on Nov 8, 2009 8:51 AM:
ordinary_man wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:17 AM:
reason-ator wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:22 AM:
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Cash for Clunkers, etc., are all broke. I don't care WHO ( Repo-blican, Dumb-ocrat, liberal, conservative, left, or right ) is getting a personal victory. The LAST people I want providing my health care is the bankrupt-peteers who keep running their programs out of money. And that's what we're going to do ? "
freeport56 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:41 AM:
alucawanza wrote on Nov 8, 2009 11:00 AM:
ROFL
Spineless Democrats allowed Bush and his policies to make it worse.! You're kidding right? Doesn't Bush carry any of the responsibility for what he and his cronies did? It's the Dems fault for what Bush did. I raise a glass of kool aid to you because now I've heard everything... "
dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 8, 2009 12:53 PM:
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/08/joseph-cao-voting-for-hea_n_349929.html&cp
Yaay! A Republican willing to stick his neck out, cross party lines, and vote his conscience based on real needs of his constituents. I am encouraged. "
dellasumbrella wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:04 PM:
Or should I just say, there will still be private insurance coverage available for those who prefer it.
c1067: "if Bush messed up so bad then Obama needs to fix it with cutting back spending."
So are you recommending he stop spending on the wars that Bush started? Just drop it?
Or he should stop spending in a way that will stimulate our ailing economy? Just let it fail? Just drop it?
Oh, by the way, the government won't be running healthcare. "
Raven wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:06 PM:
Hear Ye wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:14 PM:
napathinker wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:18 PM:
dinosilver wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:20 PM:
freeport56 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 1:26 PM:
funny how the Demoncrats passed the health care bill on the third aniversary of their asscention to power.
3 years in congress, they control the money and ability to override a veto. this is their first accomplishment in three years. At this rate they shoudl be able to do two more in the next 6 years...... "
twocentsguy wrote on Nov 8, 2009 2:17 PM:
John Richards wrote on Nov 8, 2009 3:40 PM:
But analysts say the House bill is DOA in the Senate, so I don't see what the hoopla is about.
Senators won't pass a health insurance bill that contains a public option. "
asahigo wrote on Nov 8, 2009 3:57 PM:
tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Nov 8, 2009 4:00 PM:
Have you ever heard the expression, you have to spend money to make money? Most businesses are started by people taking on debt, I don't know anyone who owns a business that is free and clear. The United states needs to spend money to get the economy going again, we won't have to worry about the spending if the country has growth and people are spending money and businesses are producing goods. Thats what this administration is trying to do. Get the money back in the peoples hands and let them get back to making this the greatest country in the world again. This health care bill goes hand in hand with that. If you have healthy workers then you have good workers, if you have happy workers then you have good workers, The healthy the worker there more money you will see being made and the quicker we can get out of this debt "
misfit wrote on Nov 8, 2009 4:07 PM:
Yes, GW is to blame for it all but, we had the majority and did NOthing with it.
What does that tell you? That is like forfeiting the game. Yes, the Democrats can share in the blame. We need to hold ALL politiicians accountable, irregardless of party leanings. We should all go Independant and keep em guessing. "
freeport56 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 5:27 PM:
nice to know that the Demoncrats are not to blame for anything, even though they have controlled the government for three years.
Active denial, democrat style..... "
Mr4 wrote on Nov 8, 2009 5:43 PM:
dinosilver wrote on Nov 8, 2009 5:54 PM:
Raven wrote on Nov 8, 2009 9:13 PM:
the bill explicitly denies coverage to illegal residents...and you are already paying for them if they us the ER's...along with any other uninsured.
dinosilver, all those are covered in the bill..download it and read it...
Cowardly Mr4?.....do you see any less criticism because of that?..where?
" I don't want to be penalized (or fined or charged with a crime ... whatever they decide is "best") because I refuse to pay for everyone's health care.."
You won't be, only if you refuse to pay for your health care...
no lack of hyperbole here today "
Bubblywine wrote on Nov 8, 2009 9:58 PM:
I have some simple questions. How many of you have ever had to purchase your own health insurance? Of those, how many had no problems purchasing good coverage? I have a perfect driving record and am able to get pretty good insurance for my autos. I have absolutely no health issues and could not get even catastrophic coverage for my own health. What's up with this? I must have health insurance to protect my house and my business, so I am paying more for a policy with a 6000 deductable with a montly payment more than any other bill except my home mortgage. More than groceries, PGE, water, garbage, phone, cell phone COMBINED. I am a healthy individual with no record of any kind. The insurance companies invented issues from side notes in my record and this is where I am. This system is not working and anyone who disagrees, in my estimation, has no experience with the system. Please share your stories about trying to get health insurance and prove me wrong. I wish it was working, but it is not. I fully support change and believe it must include a public option to make it competitive. My personal experience made me come to this conclustion. And I still use the post office to mail my letters and they still get there just fine. "
Wild Bill wrote on Nov 8, 2009 10:29 PM:
asahigo wrote on Nov 9, 2009 1:15 PM:
" I don't want to be penalized (or fined or charged with a crime ... whatever they decide is "best") because I refuse to pay for everyone's health care.."
You won't be, only if you refuse to pay for your health care..."
If I don't want this health care I'll still be forced to pay for everyone else, which could be construed as being unconstitutional. We are being forced into paying into this (if it passes).
Is there an opt out? No more private health care, no more free enterprise (which admittedly has caused sky high prices and denial of care).
I am against this particular bill, but not against reforming health care. We do need to do something, but not this. "
5th generation napan wrote on Nov 9, 2009 2:37 PM:
ONLY when congress EXEMPTS THEMSELVES 100% from the public option you should realize, once again what John Q Public will be stuck with! I would say but I'd be censored!
When will CONGRESS REALIZE they are AMERICAN's, not Democrats or Republicans! So fighting each other, they are destroying America itself!
The prophesies are right, America will never be destroyed from an outside enemy, but from WITHIN!.
Wake UP! "
Raven wrote on Nov 9, 2009 4:53 PM:
If you have a private health plan you keep paying for that...not for everyone else, which you do already for those who are uninsured and use the ER services..and don't pin your hopes on the constitutionality, they tried that when Medicare was established, didn't work then either.
"No more private health care, no more free enterprise.."
read the bill, none of that is true... "
asahigo wrote on Nov 9, 2009 11:32 PM:
Raven wrote on Nov 10, 2009 5:28 AM:
cab e-girl wrote on Nov 10, 2009 8:46 AM:
Americans want real health and health care insurance reform, not the complete governmental overtaking of our health care industry. "
anticommie wrote on Nov 10, 2009 11:05 AM:
" I don't want to be penalized (or fined or charged with a crime ... whatever they decide is "best") because I refuse to pay for everyone's health care.."
You won't be, only if you refuse to pay for your health care..."
Nice Raven. I thought all you government option proponents thought healthcare was a Right, not a privelege. So why is it that you are fine with penalizing people that dont want to pay for health insurance? When I was younger I didn't want to pay for it. Rights are things that we can waive if we want, that is what makes them a Right. So which one is it? Can a Right be mandated? I thought no. Choice or forced/ Liberty or tyranny?
Also, we will be paying for healtcare twice if the Dems get what they want. First we will have to buy our own, or pay a fine. Second, we will pay for everyone else's through taxes and raised prices medical goods and services. This bill is partly paid for by tax increases on medical manufactures. Who do you think will pay for that increase? The company or the customer? Then statists will still complain of medical prices, and ask the government to interfer even more until we have complete government control over the entire system. Is this what you want just so you can say, "I care"? "
asahigo wrote on Nov 10, 2009 1:16 PM:
How could any reasonable person expect private health care to continue if this bill passes? Private health care will have to conform to the governments regulations which will drive prices and therefore premiums way up. "
wine nurse wrote on Nov 10, 2009 5:36 PM:
Raven wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:49 PM:
According to the CBO, the average family will earn $54,000 a year in 2016, when a moderate-priced family policy will cost $14,700. Employers will pay much of that insurance bill for most middle-class families; but that's just a mask, since those employer payments come out of people's wages, not a company's profits. In real effect, a middle class family's earnings in 2016 will come to $68,700 ($54,000 + $14,700), of which $14,700 or 21.4 percent will go for health insurance. And that won't be their only health-related costs. Their co-payments and other uninsured expenses, on average, will come to another $5,100. They'll also be paying taxes to help cover other people's health care — 2.9 percent of their cash wages for Medicare ($1,566), plus perhaps $750 more in federal and state income taxes for Medicaid and for Medicare costs not covered by the 2.9 percent payroll tax. Add up all of that, and it comes to $22,116, or 32.2 percent of the middle-class family's adjusted income of $68,700.
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/11/health-reform-the-cost-of-doing-nothing/#ixzz0Wc4pIoDE
Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/11/health-reform-the-cost-of-doing-nothing/#ixzz0Wc4pJGDE
and commie, may I point out you are already paying twice for health care now .... once for yours and again for those without insurance who use the ER system..who pass those costs on to you now...so the difference is what?..you will be able keep your insurance and other will have their own insurance as well.
As for whether rights can be mandated legislatively...isn't that what happened with the Civil Rights Act? So yes they can it appears. "
Raven wrote on Nov 12, 2009 3:01 PM:
John Richards wrote on Nov 16, 2009 8:24 PM:
That hasn't been my experience with Kaiser. When my late wife was suspected to have metastasis of her cancer, her doctor ordered an MRI that was performed within a few days. (Unfortunately the MRI confirmed her terminal condition.)
When I suffered a fall from a ladder one year ago, my doctor immediately ordered an extensive series of X-rays.
Kaiser doctors will order tests that are medically indicated to be necessary. If you don't trust your doctor's judgment, switch to a different doctor. "
Raven wrote on Nov 21, 2009 1:08 PM: