The People have One Representative: Dennis Kucinich.
The rest have been bought and paid for by Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry.
ObamaCare is nowhere to be found, as the Prez did a disappearing act when the details were being debated.
Welcome to RomneyCare, where they collect the money first, then decide your fate later. It's called rationing up front.
You can choose which insurance company to enrich. The New Insurance Czar will see to that. Don't worry, the new czar will come from the same people who wrote the law, so they won't need any transition time at all.
First order of business: destroy the competition. Defund Medicare by $500 Billion, for starters. Don't allow Medicare to negotiate lower rates with suppliers.
Can't have that old '65 pick-up truck outperforming our sleek, new 2013 SUV!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scott Murphy (NY20) is a Blue Dog Democrat from a somewhat conservative (but not nearly as much as it used to be) district. He's a self-styled fiscal conservative and since fiscal conservatives have generally decided to oppose meaningful health care reform, his vote is not that surprising... even though what passed the House is only barely meaningful because of the public option and will likely be stripped of that in the Senate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And shame on you, Dennis Kucinich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... and although I'm bitterly disappointed that Walt Minnick voted against the bill (and I told him so), I do understand his position. Idaho is redder than red; the teabaggers didn't even bother to raise much of a fuss here because just about *everybody* in Idaho is a sympathizer. Walt got elected, by a narrow margin, only because the incumbent, Bill Sali, was soooooo bad. But those other Blue Dogs in states where there's more Democratic support have no excuse for voting the way they did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obamacrat official line apparently is that if you voted against this 2000 page long wonder you are either a Blue Dog or afraid of Republicans. Sole exception being Dennis Kucinich but he is labeled as crazy.

Under no circumstances are you allowed to vote against this on the grounds it is not a good idea. Only the Right is allowed that, the Left is obliged to swallow anything bone that Obama and his boys are willing to toss.

Hey all is fair in love and war (so long as it suits the ruling oligarchy) right? And all this from the same crew that bailed out the rich and currently wages two wars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is all play-acting. This bill was settled when Obummer met with Billy Tauzin and the health industry CEO's--months ago. He wants to be the first president to pass a healthcare bill--any kind, just as long as it supports the industries who donated heavily to his campaign, for "priviledges"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This House insurance "reform" bill does the following:

Mandates that 21 million people BUY health insurance or be fined.

This health "INSURANCE" has NO caps on premiums.

They can still charge you whatever they want.

Premiums are expected to increase up to 30% by 2013 when the bill goes into effect.

There is NO REFORM. Unless you consider the sexist amendment to take away coverage for abortions that NANCY PELOSI included.

NANCY PELOSI refused to include the KUCINICH amendment, though, giving states to right to provide single-payer health care.

Voting NO to the House bill by Dennis Kucinich is a testament to his consistent allegiance to the PEOPLE, NOT the INSURANCE INDUSTRY or big business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I urge the author to give this matter more thought. This bill should have been rejected out of hand as it manages at one and the same time to vastly increase the revenues and customer base of the insurance industry and it sticks tax-payers with the tab. It does this by proposing subsidies for people who have trouble paying for the inflated premiums. It does nothing substantial to reduce health care costs. What on earth are you "liberal" pundits halleluja-ing about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gosh, I am so happy that someone finally listened to the working poor of this nation. Thanks to the hard work of Nancy Pelosi and our elected representatives we now have the privlege of buying into the greatest health care system in the world!! Those of us who cannot afford to buy insurance or do not desire to increase the coffers of the medical industrial complex will be summarily flogged and fined. If said individuals are unable to pay the fines imposed upon them, then the same individuals shall be imprisoned in this great nations new and improved corporate prison system (at a substantial savings to the taxpaying public). God Bless America, democracy triumps again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This "historic" vote is nothing but window dressing and a gift to the health insurance bandits on a par with the Wall Street giveaway to those gangsters. Obama is proving to be nothing more than Clinton redux.

And Adele, Kucinich was not the only liberal to vote against the bill.
Eric Massa, an unwavering supporter of single-payer, Medicare for all, also voted against it on principle. Principle...something the Dems and Obama, thanks to Rahm Emanuel, the new domestic Cheney, have abandoned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

his reasoning is this:
"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system."

"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."

"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross."

"By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies."

"Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street."

"This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care."

"Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals."

Obama and the Democrats confused the issue so badly that it was very difficult to know what to believe. Kucinich has been very clear from the start and I support this HERO of the American People. Don't say "Shame" until you know the facts people! The Democrats love as much as the Republicans to keep us ignorant!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need two countries. One for selfish idiots and one for those with compassion and brains.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contrast two who opposed the bill. David Kucinich has a principled and rational explanation that is consistent with the facts. Brian Baird does not. His lame "we don't know the cost" excuse lowers him further into the bluedog ranks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

although his no vote, and the reasons why, got nowhere to the coverage it should have, thank god for Dennis Kucinich and for you in Ohio who keep him in office.

We need to find more like him and get them in there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We need a single payer option, and we need reasonable insurance premiums, neither of which are provided in this bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pwogs really need to pull their heads out of their derrieres

The Truth About the House Health Care Bill

By ROSE ANN DeMORO

Of all the torrent of words that followed House passage of its version of healthcare reform legislation in early November, perhaps the most misleading were those comparing it to enactment of Social Security and Medicare.

Sadly no. Social Security and Medicare were both federal programs guaranteeing respectively pensions and health care for our nation's seniors, paid for and administered by the federal government with public oversight and public accountability.

While the House bill, and its Senate counterpart, do have several important reform components, along with many weaknesses, neither one comes close to the guarantees and the expansion of health and income security provided by Social Security or Medicare.

By contrast, if the central premise of Social Security and Medicare was a federal guarantee of health and retirement security, the main provision of the bills in Congress is a mandate requiring most Americans without health coverage to buy private insurance.

In other words, the principle beneficiary is not Americans' health, but the bottom line of the insurance industry which stands to harvest tens of billions of dollars in additional profits ordered by the federal government. Or as Rep. Eric Massa of New York put it on the eve of the House vote, "at the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period."

Further, while Social Security and Medicare, two of the most important reforms in American history, were both significant expansions of public protection, the House bill actually reduces public protection for a substantial segment of the population, women, with its unconscionable rollback of reproductive rights in the anti-abortion amendment.

Why then so much cheerleading by many progressive and liberal legislators, columnists, and activists?

* Passage of the bill was a clear defeat for the Republican opposition and those on the right who have so mischaracterized what boils down to modest reform that looks more like a "robust" version of the Medicare prescription drug benefit or the state children's health initiative.

* Proponents of the bill, starting in the White House and running through the Democratic leadership in Congress, with the assistance and support of many in labor and liberal and progressive constituency groups, have so lowered expectations on healthcare reform that with eyes wide shut they can call this a sweeping victory.

To be sure there are commendable provisions in the House bill that bear note. Among the most important are:

* Expansion of Medicaid to millions of low income adults.

* Reduction of the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare drug coverage law making drug costs more affordable for many seniors.

* Increased federal funding for community health programs, such as home visits for nurses and social workers to low income families.

* Additional regulation of the insurance industry, mostly targeted to people who are presently without coverage rather than those with existing health plans. Those include limits on insurers ability to drop sick enrollees or refuse to sell policies to people with prior health problems, extending the age that dependent children can be on their parents' plan, and repeal of the anti-trust exemption for insurers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(Cont'd)

* Extending the same health benefit tax benefits available to married couples to domestic partners.

* A progressive tax to help pay the bill through a surcharge on wealthy earners and required contributions from large employers, in sharp contrast with the Senate proposal to tax health benefits on misnamed "Cadillac" plans, comprehensive coverage available to many union members, for example.

But the acclaim now flowing from some quarters would have been better deserved had these provisions been enacted on their own -- not accompanied by the many shortcomings of the legislation. To cite a few:

* Healthcare will remain unaffordable for many Americans. The bill does not do nearly enough to control skyrocketing insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital costs. Indeed, by various estimates, with no effective limits on the insurance industry's price gouging, out-of-pocket costs for premiums, deductibles and other fees by some estimates with eat up from 15 to 19 percent of family incomes by several accounts.

* No meaningful reform of the rampant insurance denials of medical treatment the insurers don't want to pay for.

* Little assistance for individuals and families who presently have employer-sponsored health plans and face frequent erosion of their coverage and health security. No help for the healthcare cost-shifting from employers to employees.

* Minimal expansion of consumer choice. The much debated public plan option will be available only to about 2 percent of people under age 65, mostly those now not covered who buy insurance on their own (it may or may not be expanded in 2015). Further, no additional plan options for those in the many markets dominated by one or two private plans, and no additional choice of doctor or hospital within existing plans.
* The new limits on abortion extended to poor women.

Ultimately, the combination of the mandate to buy insurance, federal subsidies to low income families to purchase private plans, failure to adequately control insurance prices or crack down on the abuse of insurance denials make the House bill -- and its Senate counterpart -- look a lot like a massive bailout for the private insurance industry.

Don't be misled by the howling from insurance industry which has been spending some $1.4 million a day to steer the direction of legislation. They would have preferred the status quo, but will be more than happy to count the increased revenues coming their way.

As Rep. Dennis Kucinich said on the House floor, "we cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem."

While some people will have improved access, the final accounting will be an even firmer private insurance grip on our healthcare system, with the U.S. remaining the only industrialized nation which barters our health for private profit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

[Pwogs who attack Kucinich on this are doing so from the RIGHT!]

Months ago, the Obama administration pre-determined this outcome by ruling out the most comprehensive, most cost effective, most humane reform, single payer, or an expanded and improved Medicare for all. Single payer proponents were shut out of White House forums, blocked from most hearings in the Senate, and single payer amendments stripped from the final House bill. Yet, through grassroots pressure, single-payer advocates forced consideration by the House of an improved Medicare for all until the very end.

But nurses and other single payer proponents who have heroically fought for this reform for years will continue the campaign, next in the Senate, where single payer amendments are expected to be introduced. The scene will also shift to state capitols, where vibrant single payer movements remain active and will escalate.

Proponents of comprehensive reform will never be silent, and never stop working for the real change we most desperately need.

Rose Ann DeMoro is executive director of the California Nurses Association.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sounds like a bold statement, but it is very factual. I have traveled to Russia many times, and the parallels to that country in terms of the USA becoming more like it every day are STARTLING and ALARMING.

Do we need healthcare reform? YES! In the form of Obamacare? NO!

The above named Dems hopefully will be the only Dems re-elected in the future, and let me say for the record I am a lifelong Democrat, who is thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic Party's lackluster leadership in Congress.

Fact is this healthcare program will cost a great deal more than what they claim, as is evidenced by EVERYTHING Congress spends money on. Did you ever hear it said...WE SPENT LESS MONEY THAN ANTICPATED? NO!

The only solution is to stop voting for incumbents that pass bad legislation like this.

The only hope is that the Senate will embrace gridlock, and produce nothing.

Vote the DEMS out of office, with the exception of the brave people listed above.

The striking simularities between Putin and Obama in how they demand what they want should have people alarmed about the future in the USA.

Do you really want the IRS telling you what to do regarding healthcare? The IRS fining you and possibly imprisoning you when you fail to pay the $3,500 penalty for not funding heathcare?

Sounds like a totalitarian approach to me.

With this legislation, I predict the birth of the second American Revolution, where business men and women will rise up and remove this current government, by force if necessary.

Obama is a solid liar. No taxes on the middle class, yet healthcare costs will go through the roof, his cap and trade tax will levy $3,000 per household, and there are probably another 20 new taxes that will affect us, including higher gasoline taxes.

In like Carter, out like Johnson. That is Obama's fate.

Everyone MUST let their legislators know that what they are doing is WRONG!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Single-payer health care is the only reform that would both control costs and cover all Americans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had pledged to hold a House vote on single-payer, but she broke her promise, and did not allow the vote.

Even worse, Speaker Pelosi stripped a provision from the health care bill that would have allowed states to try single-payer.

As a final insult, the House approved an anti-choice amendment that will remove abortion coverage from millions of health insurance policies.

That's just not good enough.

Americans deserve a healthcare system that will cover everyone and won't bankrupt anyone.

Let's make our voices heard for real health care reform. Sen. Bernie Sanders has introduced S. 703, a bill that would create single-payer systems in every state to cover all Americans.

Tell your senators to support true health care reform by co-sponsoring S. 703 today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember mention of single-payer universal health care? It was spoken of by no less a person than Barack Obama.
It had absolutely NO chance of becoming a reality. The arrogant criminals in the pharma and insurance rackets flexed their muscles, and-poof! It was gone, never to return.
Next came a "public option", which kept the crooks in the picture, but provided for some not-for-profit competition and basically covered everyone, one way or another.
So, what did we end up with? A watered-down piece of crap and giant giveway to the crooks, so bad that even Kucinich voted against it.
The Senate is waiting to finish the job and preserve the status quo.
I'd just as soon see the whole thing shitcanned and begun anew WITHOUT the crooks at the table and with a non-negotiable demand for a non profit program.
The Democrats have the numbers to accomplish this.
You have to ask yourself why they DON'T do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rep. Eric Massa of New York is a STRONG supporter of single payer. Why he is lumped with the "blue dogs" by this author, casts doubts on the author's research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]