Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote

Posted by Adele Stan, AlterNet at 8:32 PM on November 7, 2009.


With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
adeleheadshot

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

In an historic vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, a health-care reform bill containing a public health-insurance plan passed the chamber by a vote of 220-215. One Republican, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, voted with the Democrats, while 39 Democrats, including Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich, voted against H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Both of the Democrats who won special elections last week, Bill Owens of New York's 23rd district, and John Garamendi of California's 10th voted for the bill.

As the time allotted for voting drew to a close, Democrats, shouting in unison, counted down the final seconds like it was New Year's Eve. Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiled broadly as she pounded the gavel and announced the result.

At a meeting with reporters following the bill's passage, Pelosi called up Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the upper chamber's long-time champion of health-care reform. "My dad was a senator," Kennedy said, "but tonight his spirit was in the House."

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., also played an historically symbolic role in the vote, gaveling the start of the proceedings.  Like his father before him, who was also a congressman, Dingell has introduced a health-care reform bill every year of his 54-year career in the House, and gaveled to order the 1964 proceedings for the passage of Medicare.

The bill passed in the House includes a public health-insurance plan that is one of a number of plans -- the rest offered by private and non-profit insurers -- that consumers will be able to purchase on an insurance exchange, which has been described as a sort of shopping mall of insurance policies. Lower-income citizens will be eligible for federally-financed subsidies of premiums. All Americans will be required to carry a minimum level of health insurance or face a tax penalty. Individuals earning more than $500,000 annually, and couples who earn more than $1 million per year, will face an additional tax to help finance the health-care plan.

Included in the legislation are protections against exclusion from coverage for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on rescissions that have seen people suddenly dropped from coverage because they failed to disclose a minor condition such as acne. Women will be protected from elimination of coverage for gender-specific conditions. Young adults will be able to remain on the parents' policies until their 27th birthdays, and several discriminatory practices against LGBT people will be prohibited.

(For more on what's in the bill and likely battles to arise in a conference committee, see 5 Key Fights We Face Against the Insurance Industry by AlterNet's Joshua Holland.)

It was a week of wrangling, arm-twisting and conservaDem-whispering for House leaders as they sought to put together the 218 votes necessary to pass the bill. Originally scheduled for Friday, the vote was put off for a day as House Whip James Clyburn and Pelosi's whip team worked members of the Democratic caucus to bring more on board. President Barack Obama consequently delayed a planned Friday visit to Capitol Hill for a meeting with Democrats about the bill, instead making the trek today in a bid to sway any stragglers.

Much of the slow-down came at the hands of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who insisted that the bill was not strong enough in preventing the use of federal funds for abortion procedures, since the bill would permit a woman who bought private health insurance -- with her own money -- through a federally-administered insurance exchange to purchase a policy that covered abortion. With the backing of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Stupak and Joe Pitts, R-Penn., held up the bill, looking for a deal on language that would appease the church. (Both Stupak and Pitts belong to the secretive Capitol Hill religious group known as The Family.)

As of Friday night, Pelosi thought she had worked out a language compromise with the pro- and anti-choice forces, but before daybreak, the deal had fallen apart "because they can't count," Stupak said of Pelosi's negotiators during a press conference after the House vote.

Unable to deliver the compromise she thought she had forged, Pelosi allowed Stupak to bring his concerns to the floor in the form of an amendment, which passed with the votes of 64 Democrats. (More about the amendment from AlterNet here and RH Reality Check here.)

Part of Pelosi's calculus in allowing the Stupak amendment seems to be the unlikelihood that it will survive in the conference committee that will reconcile the House bill with whatever the Senate eventually passes and calls health-care reform. Certainly House Minority Leader John Boehner seemed to think so, as he made a point, during the general debate on the larger health-care bill of asking each of the committee chairmen who together crafted the Affordable Health Care Act whether they would commit to preserving the amendment when the bill is finalized in conference committee.

Boehner's point was rhetorical; no one in his right mind commits to the outcome of a conference negotiation, especially when you don't know what will be in the other body's bill.  But when he pressed House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.; Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., whether they would personally commit to supporting inclusion of the Stupak amendment language in any bill to come out of a conference committee, none would.

Similarly, Speaker Pelosi, when asked during her presser after the bill's historic passage whether the Stupak language would survive in a conference committee replied that in the course of the development of the bill, she and key members of her caucus have sought "common ground" on the abortion issue, which was not to be found. "We will continue to seek common ground," she said, meaning that nothing was set in stone.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who decried the Stupak amendment on the House floor, stood at the speaker's side as she made her common-ground comments. Pelosi cited DeLauro as an important member of the whip team, which also included Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen.

Pelosi is keenly aware of the gender politics in the sausage-making of the health-care bill. The speaker made a point in her opening remarks at the press conference of saying that that bill made certain that "no longer would being a woman be a pre-existing condition." That language comes directly from a campaign by the National Women's Law Center, and refers to insurers' catagorization of pregnancy and domestic violence as "pre-existing conditions" for the purposes of denying coverage. H.R. 3962 prohibits such practices.

Asked by a reporter whether, given the close vote today on health care and a similarly close vote last month on climate-change legislation, the speaker had spent down her political capital for other important legislation coming down the pike, Pelosi replied, smiling, "What are you, Scrooge early? I reject your premise."

Digg!

Tagged as: nancy pelosi, health care reform, affordable health care fo

Adele M. Stan is AlterNet's Washington editor.


Tiny Michigan Town Tells Liz Cheney to Take her Fearmongering Elsewhere
Someplace where they're all wusses.
Post by BarbinMD. November 21, 2009.
What Sarah Palin's "Jewish people will be flocking to Israel" prediction really means
Palin's associated with a religious tendency whose leaders promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theory
Post by Bruce Wilson. November 21, 2009.
Tea-Parties so Diverse, They Had to Use the Same Black Guy in 5 Different Scenes of Tea-Bagger Movie
Really, you know a black tea-bagger named Nate?
Post by Oliver Willis. November 20, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Most of the House "Progressives" Caved . . .
Posted by: Earthian on Nov 7, 2009 9:04 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is very sad. Kucinich voted no. But few of the 57 of the Congressional Progressive Caucus members who promised to say no to any bill that didn't have a robust public option actually kept their word.

Once again, they betrayed their base.

Here is a link to the vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml

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

» Adele Stans is a fawning Obamaite Posted by: citizenjoe
» Adele Stan has got to go!. Posted by: citizenjoe
Good for DK
Posted by: jbro434 on Nov 7, 2009 11:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can count on Dennis for keeping his word and sticking to what he believes. You may not always like it, but you know he can be trusted.

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

» RE: Good for DK Posted by: kettleblack
» RE: Good for DK Posted by: weightman
» "Why I Voted No" by DK Posted by: weightman
Abortion in health bill
Posted by: nise52 on Nov 7, 2009 11:42 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are men...ANY men...voting about a medical procedure that is only performed on female bodies? How would men like it if we demanded that men who masturbated be arrested and charged with murder because they destroyed their spilled sperm the "potential" of life (similar to a woman's fertilized egg?

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

» RE: Abortion in health bill Posted by: richholland
» Sperm=Fertilized egg? Posted by: DJC11
» RE: Sperm=Fertilized egg? Posted by: astralman
» RE: Sperm=Fertilized egg? Posted by: DJC11
This is a joke
Posted by: rancespergl on Nov 7, 2009 11:59 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I'm not laughing.

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

Let's see what the Senate does before celebrating anything
Posted by: Harris20 on Nov 8, 2009 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One common ground in both House and Senate plans is that insurers will no longer be able to reject new customers with pre-existing medical conditions. I wonder how the insurance companies are going to compensate for this set-back. Both plans say new restrictions will be placed on how high they can set their premiums. But how high is high or what do they consider low is another question. The bill will not be fully realized on all 48 million uninsured Americans until 2019. Wonder how many will die for lack of care before that year arrives.

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

Very Sad Day
Posted by: WeimMom on Nov 8, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.

http://www.investors.com/
NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199

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

» RE: Very Sad Day Posted by: whiterhino
» 45% is a questionable number Posted by: brunowe
» RE: 45% is a questionable number Posted by: Beadmaster
» Doctors Strike ? Posted by: rww
» Statistics and Analysis Posted by: Word Mix
It Is Not Yet Time To Cheer
Posted by: melpol on Nov 8, 2009 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The healthcare bill is not law. It still has to debated on by the senate before a vote. The bill might not even be passed.

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

» god, let's hope it doen't pass... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» *doesn't Posted by: undrgrndgirl
OBAMA'S LATEST BAILOUT - PLAN FORCES 21 MILLION TO BUY INSURANCE
Posted by: smf1403 on Nov 8, 2009 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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." - Dennis Kucinich

IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO?

We need to support Dennis Kucinich.

He can always be counted on to do the right thing.

This bill will be further watered down at committee.

Continuing to vote for congress members and presidents who are millionaires and lawyers and represent their own best interests.

IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN DO?

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

America - land of the poor!
Posted by: bigbrother on Nov 8, 2009 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fined if you don't buy health care - businesses taxed for not providing healthcare coverage, tax surcharges on the upper middle class.... the end of America - welcome to the great welfare state!

Not sure of another country except maybe Venezuela or Cuba that penalizes one for being successful!

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

» RE: America - land of the poor! Posted by: richholland
» RE: America - land of the poor! Posted by: Sekhmetnakt
It's unconstitutional; it's set up to fail; it's a big,wet,sloppy kiss for the insurers.
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Nov 8, 2009 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unconstitutional because I am now required by government to patronize one rapacious, monopolistic business or another. The oft cited example of auto insurance doesn't hold water for several reasons:

A) A driver's license is simply a permit to operate a vehicle on a publicly built road; the state has a right to enforce terms and conditions in that permitting process.

B) You may consider an automobile a necessity of life, but it is not. There are other options. They may suck, but they do exist. Driving a car is not an "unalienable right."

C) Personally, I believe that if the state is going to require insurance, it should provide that insurance, like it does with floods, but the purchase of auto insurance is a state mandate, not federal - and it is administered by the states. That actually is, constitutionally, a major difference.

D) This mandate is imposed as a condition simply to draw breath as a citizen in this country. There is nothing optional about that. Requiring that I patronize one business or another is simply incredible. That makes the board of Blue Cross a taxing entity every time they choose to raise rates. Congress has the right to levy taxes, and the responsibility to "provide for the general welfare (that is why Medicare is constitutional), insurers do not.

It is set up to fail because it will attract the worst risks, the young and healthy - the way it is set up - will be forced into private plans. The "Public Option" won't be available to most of the young and healthy; they are being forced into the arms of private insurers; thus (since it has to pay for itself like any other insurance company) it will be the most expensive option available just like the "risk pool" now offered for auto insurance in the various states!

"Just pass the bill, we can fix it later." That's what we heard when the Medicare drug benefit was passed with the "pay whatever the hell the drug companies want to charge" provision. When the hell is later?

This is what you get when you have institutionalized bribery and have the best congress money can buy.

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

To finish off the working class bloodletting...
Posted by: drone on Nov 8, 2009 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all the Senate needs to do is to make the mandate penalties more draconian and you'll have the friendliest insurance bill ever.

seriously, why don't they just pass the "mandatory consumption act of 2010" and just issue us each at birth a list of items and providers we must purchase and consume under penalties of imprisonment and get this over with.

and with these obscene time lines for the new legislation to take effect, they have effectively killed off single payer legislation for more than a decade.

congratulations, Dems! you continue to give the word "suck" deeper meaning.

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

A dumbass plan for dumbasses
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 8, 2009 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Demopublicans, you got what you voted for, congratulations, you deserve it.

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

Did C-14 Pass?
Posted by: weightman on Nov 8, 2009 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm wondering if the Kerry/Hatch Amendment (C-14) passed intact with the House Bill?

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

Why Dennis Kucinich voted NO to this scam !
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Nov 8, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/08-0

And some people will be crazy enough to call him a "republican" !

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

» Damn Kucinich! Posted by: bonapartist
The cowardly 55 so-called progressives who caved to corporate power:
Posted by: Earthian on Nov 8, 2009 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On July 30th of this year, 57 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said this about health care reform:

"Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates -not negotiated rates -is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of"keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down."

Incredibly, in a stunning display of mass cowardice before corporate power, only two of the 57 kept their commitment, Dennis Kucinich and Eric Massa. My praise goes to them, their courage, and their commitment to their word. Bravo!

The other 55, the cowardly, lying 55, broke their word to the American progressive citizenry.

My only hope for them is when the final bill comes back from conference committee, surely in even less-progressive condition, that they will re-examine their consciences and vote no. But based on this betrayal of their written commitment of July 30, I have no hope that they will. They have no spines. No courage. No commitment to anything they say. They caved. They are worse than the conservatives who at least have the courage of their corporate convictions.

Here are the cowardly, lying, spineless 55:

Lynn Woolsey

Raul Grijalva

Carolyn Kilpatrick

Jerry Nadler

Phil Hare

Lucille Roybal-Allard

Keith Ellison

Earl Blumenauer

Mel Watts

Donna Edwards

John Olver

Laura Richardson

Maxine Waters

John Conyers

Judy Chu

Maurice Hinchey

Hank Johnson

Diane Watson

Jackie Speier

Bill Pascrell

Lloyd Doggett

Marcy Kaptur

Mazie Hirono
Bob Filner

Linda Sanchez

Marcia Fudge

Barbara Lee

Andre Carson

Sheila Jackson Lee

Michael Honda

Jim McDermott

William Lacy Clay

Jim McGovern

Yvette Clarke

Chellie Pingree

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Elijah Cummings

Bennie Thompson

Gwen Moore

Donald Payne

Fortney "Pete" Stark

Ed Towns

Corrine Brown

Alcee Hastings

Nydia Valezquez

Luis Gutierrez

Grace Napolitano

Albio Sires

John Tierney

Mike Capuano

Chaka Fattah

Jose Serrano

Sam Farr

Bill Delahunt

Eddie Bernice Johnson

I personally will never again trust what these individuals say, only what they do. They have violated the trust of progressives with their cowardly caving to corporate power. They are liars all.

Here is the e-mail address of the Congressional Progressive Caucus for sending a message urging them to grow spines for the final vote:

progressive@mail.house.gov

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

I've turned 180 degrees on this thing
Posted by: Stanislav on Nov 8, 2009 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I started out being a fierce advocate of health care reform. But the more this legislation has been gutted, compromised, weakened, and complicated, the weaker my enthusiasm became, until I was now rooting against this piece of crapola.

I don't think most Americans -- even liberals, even the cheerleading denizens of this site -- have fully comprehended the potential impact of the mandate coupled with insufficient subsidies.

Look, I understand the concept of the mandate, and why it is, to some degree, a necessity. But I expected a sliding scale of premiums all the way down to zero if you fall below a certain income level. Nope -- the subsidies don't even figure into the equation unless you spend more than 12% of your income on premiums. What are these people smoking? What makes them think the working poor or the lower tier of the middle class have 12% of income available to pay for insurance? If you're getting minimum wage, that works out to about $1800 a year or $150 a month. How many fast food workers or Wal-Mart slaves do you think have an extra $150 a month lying around to pay for health insurance? Not to mention that even if someone could, by scrimping and cutting back on "luxuries" like food, cough up that much, they'll still face deductibles and co-pays that they will be unable to pay because they've already been bled dry for premiums.

And AFAIK (I am in no wise well-versed in the intricacies of this monstrously large bill -- neither, I suspect, is anyone on Capitol Hill), the subsidies are "rebated" when you file your tax return -- i.e., pay full-price up front, and we'll send ya a check once a year. So that means even more money paid upfront -- money that these people do not have.

When you consider that the provisions of this legislation are likely to be made even worse to get through the Senate, any sane person should be working to see that this bizarro version of health care reform does NOT pass. This is NOT a case where passing something, anything, is better than the status quo -- this "reform," as is, will make a lot of people poorer and very few healthier. The absolute poorest of the poor will get exempted from the mandate, but still have no health coverage. The slightly better off, but still poor, will be forced to opt for the lesser of the evils (the fines), fall deeper into want and debt, and still have no health insurance. Those who can somehow scrape together enough to pay their share of the premiums will still delay or forego treatment because they can't afford the deductibles and co-pays, so they might as well not bother and take the fine.

So, tell me -- WHO, exactly, is going to be helped by this?

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

» Very well put Posted by: kegbot1
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Nice but when
Posted by: qbeeno on Nov 8, 2009 7:50 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK< I like it but the question is how many years (or decades) will pass before the "Sheeple" actually benefit from it? I am betting NEVER. Too much precious profit at stake!

Jessi
Ultimate Anonymity

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

» RE: Nice but when Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
they want us dead.
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Nov 8, 2009 9:49 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they want us dead. bottom line.

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

» RE: they want us dead. Posted by: richholland
» No, they want us indentured Posted by: truthteller
The People have no representatives
Posted by: xi_people on Nov 9, 2009 3:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

- George Orwell, Animal Farm

In case anyone missed it, the so-called House of Representatives, which was supposed to be the legislative body which looked out for the interest of the people has morphed into one of "Them".

If nothing else, this monstrosity of a bill proves that any voice that the common man ever had in governmental decisions has been extinguished. The lone dissenting votes of Kucinich and one other "representative" obvious don't do a thing to change this calculus.

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

Good Conscience
Posted by: melpol on Nov 9, 2009 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Millions of Americans that are not poor enough to be eligible for medicaid but too poor to afford private coverage will be happy with national healthcare. Minimum wage workers will now be protected in a medical crisis. No, American in good conscience should deny these benefits to our most unfortunate citizens.

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

» Oversimplified Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: Good Conscience Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Good Conscience Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
This bill is a TICKING HEALTHCARE TIMEBOMB JUST LIKE DANTE'S PEAK !
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 9, 2009 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1990 pages is NOT reform. It's corporate pork for Big Insurance. VA and NJ should have been a wake up call but it will take more than 2010 and 2012 of giving the Democrats the PAUL KERSEY POLITICAL DEATH WISH to make them do anything in favor of the people and not the corporations !

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

This Breath Holding and foot stomping is pissing me off
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 9, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regardless from which side. I'm very disappointed in Kucinich. In Hindsight why he voted against it will be irrelevent when another 45,000 die next year. Frankly I want something passed so we can build on it and tweek it as we go.
Do I think we need a public option- absolutely. Do I think we should cover abortions because it is your Right to make medical decisions for yourself without Gov't, or Corps, interference- Yes.
But I am not so cold or idealistic that I would be willing to forego progress on this most dire issue to assure these were included.
Call me a pragmatic progressive.

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

My Congressman - A Bluedog - VOTED YES
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 9, 2009 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to my Congressman Pat Murphy - a blue dog- from Bucks County,Pa (PA-8th) for voting yes on the historic House health care reform bill.

Murphy is also leading the effort to repeal "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" on gays in military.

I'm proud of him

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

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

hmmmm
Posted by: lclark on Nov 9, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years."

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

» Great for background checks Posted by: bonapartist
» RE: hmmmm Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
» RE: hmmmm Posted by: photon's feather
popham
Posted by: popham on Nov 9, 2009 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If nothing else, the Democratic Party has just
guaranteed themselves a thorough review by their constituents in the elections of 2010.
They have 'insured' themselves of being voted
out of office.

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

gift from the Demorat Party (yes, I spelled it correct)
Posted by: MFox1948 on Nov 9, 2009 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perfect, this proves Democratic Party is Fascist like the main stream Republibumbs. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich and the other Democrats that voted No on this ‘healthcare’ proposal.

Just what America DID NOT want, but the smiling monkey Democrats are more interested in paying back on the lobbies’ dollars paid to them.

Shame on you! Forcing the public to be health insurance from the very cause of the problem! Yeah, there will be coverage, but guess what, no controls on the cost. And still the 31% administrative cost, which likely will raise because of allllllll the extra work they will have to do now.

Single payer health care is the answer, not this convoluted fascist joke legislation.

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

Muddy waters
Posted by: willymack on Nov 9, 2009 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Something as crystal clear as health care for all has been twisted into a muddled mess as those with the most to lose have been furiously lying, obfuscating, misdirecting, bribing, and trying to scare the wits out of those who don't have that many wits to begin with, all to defeat something we need and DESERVE.
The implication here is that it won't work, and will cost too much.
This is from the same people who don't have to worry about health care because they can afford the best, and from those who can find hundreds of billions of dollars for two phony wars, but not a dime for equitable health care for the rest of us.

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

This healthcare bill is a huge giveaway to the Insurance companies
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Nov 9, 2009 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it would be informative for all to see the actual transcript of conversions that took place this morning on Democracy Now show between congressman Kucinich and Amy Goodman:
===============================================

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Because it’s not the best we can do. It mandates people purchase private insurance. It is a $70 billion giveaway to private insurance companies and locks in this system that’s the problem, not the solution.

And so, I made every effort, right from the beginning, as you know, as a single-payer advocate. We couldn’t really make this bill single payer; that was taken off the table. But we did something else: We were able to get a bill in the committee passed that would protect the right of states to be able to have—to pursue a not-for-profit healthcare plan at a state level to shield it from legal attack. And that was taken out of the legislation after it had passed. It was taken out by the administration, which has whittled down the public option to the point of not having it truly compete with insurance companies.

So what you have here is people continuing to be at the mercy of the insurance companies, except in this case the government is going to subsidize the policies. People are still going to have premiums, co-pays and deductibles to deal with. And, you know, there’s really a great deal of question here as to what in the world we’re doing in creating a healthcare system that’s really based on the premises of private insurance.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think it’s better than what we have now?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No. Actually, it’s not, because it locks us into a for-profit system that the government subsidizes. It’s not going to save money in the long run. It’s not going to provide the kind of broad healthcare services the American people need. It’s going to limit the choices that people have over a longer period of time. And people will have to buy private insurance. I mean, what’s going on in this country? We’re told that the only choice we have is to buy private insurance, and with the robust public option being gone, it makes sure that there’s little competition with the insurance companies. This bill doesn’t effectively moderate what they can charge for premiums or co-pays or deductibles. It just says people have to have insurance. Well, insurance doesn’t necessarily equate to care, and care comes at a cost.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you compare the public option in the House bill with the Senate bill?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, that remains to be seen. I mean, Senator Baucus has had a couple different iterations. His first bill didn’t have a public option at all.

Keep something in mind. When Mr. Hacker first came out with his proposal for a public option, it was going to cover 129 million Americans. That really would compete in an exchange with private insurance. But that’s been whittled down to, depending on who you talk to, covering six to 11 million people. So only a fraction of Americans will have access to the public option, which means that there’s not effective competition with the insurance companies to drive down rates.

And the Senate, we’ll see what happens in the Senate.

But as far as the House bill that I was confronted with, Amy, I just felt that it increased privatization of the healthcare system. Requiring the purchase of private insurance, the government subsidizing it, it ends up being a redistribution of the wealth of this nation upwards, which lately seems to be the sole purpose of the government.

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

dogman12
Posted by: dogman12 on Nov 9, 2009 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As recent history has shown, when Democrats get the upper hand, with a chance to actually DO something that helps the American people, they stick that hand down their pants, and play with themselves until it's too late! And nothing, of any good, passes the Senate! So why really discuss it at all? And why did I just waste time typing this out? Hope springs eternal, AND stupid!

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

A world class FAIL, brought to you by 'Merkuh's owning-class
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 9, 2009 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shocking. Unsurprising and shocking.

But this is what "reform" looks like from the POV of the Owning-class in the USA.

It's time for some furniture to be thrown onto lawns, people. It is war: us against them.

OTOH, think positive, look on the bright-side, drink the kool-aid... because in just a few short years the Repukes and Libertatotalitariansists will bring us a Fascist savior carrying a cross to the White House.

Thanks, rich people. If some of us weren't bending over so you could ass-rape us, now we're all required to by law. And now we'll have to pay them for the lube to boot. Yay.

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

Pelosi to the People: "I reject you..."
Posted by: DaBear on Nov 9, 2009 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asked by a reporter whether, given the close vote today on health care and a similarly close vote last month on climate-change legislation, the speaker had spent down her political capital for other important legislation coming down the pike, Pelosi replied, smiling, "What are you, Scrooge early? I reject your premise."

Sums up the owning class "fuck-you" to the people doesn't it? Disgusting.

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

"meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
Posted by: whathaway on Nov 9, 2009 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more I find out about what was actually passed, the more it is obvious the we have been completely duped. This is a huge give-away to private insurance industry. There is little, actually nothing to control health costs or enable american to have access to affordable care.

And really come on: mandatory purchasing of a private insurance that will be subsidised by the gov. with our tax dollars?!? WTF?!

Hats off to Mr. Kucinich. I believe there is truth to the saying "the higher, the fewer" as there few with standards and convictions as high as Kucinich's.

Lets hope it all falls apart in conference and the senate can come up with something better.

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

it passes...
Posted by: WyrdSister on Nov 9, 2009 12:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but once again, women are thrown under the bus.

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

Yes, it's true. It "us" against "them"
Posted by: lclark on Nov 9, 2009 12:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Them"=multinational corporations, special interests with goals and values opposed by most citizens, and thier bought and paid for congress and Senate.
"Us"=unrepresented but voting citizens.

What a sad state if affairs to have to listen to the clowns go on and on about the democratic virtues of America while they bring it down and use their stanglehold on the law making bodies to bind and plunder us.

You can't even run for office and appear on media for public exposure unless your bought and paid for.

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

These bills - both Senate and House versions - should...
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 9, 2009 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
never leave Congress and if some hybrid of them does, it should be vetoed immediately by the President. This is bad legislation dictated by the Catholic church, The Family, and the insurance industry. It penalizes the very people it is suppose to help with little immediate help for anyone.

This isse has three components that need to be addressed individually.

First: the insurance industry needs to be heavily regulated, and their anti-trust exemption removed. that should be one bill.

Second: The establishment of two government- run health plans: single-payer by state mandate, and a national public choice that offers coverage similar to that of Congress, to be paid for with premiums from those who purchase coverage at an affordable price. This second plan would compete with private insurers.

Third: expansion of the Health Saving Account plan for those who cannot qualify for low income coverage, but who cannot afford the policies of their employers or the government fines either. This plan would allow for those who wish to set up accounts like IRAs and contribute to them in the same manner. This kind of account is currently on the IRS books, but few people know about it, and it has the flexibility that many people want, including the access to abortions because the owner is the one who is paying for it. Employers can be required to contribute to them as they are to health insurance coverage, but any money paid into the account is tax deductible for both employer and employee. There should be no limit on how much can be contributed, and the only restriction is that it can only be withdrawn for medical bills or else it is taxable as income.

If done as three separate, smaller bills, this might actually achieve what none of these bills current before Congress actually does - create affordable health care for Americans. And no bill should exclude reproductive health care for women or other restrictions against particular segments of our society.

There is a solution - just not the one Pelosi is crowing about or that Reid is pushing through. It is time for Obama to step up and put a stop to this - offering an alternative approach that might actually help Americans and isolate the affects of private insurance companies.

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

Adele Stan has got to go!
Posted by: citizenjoe on Nov 9, 2009 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She is chief of Altertnet's Washington Bureau but she acts as a servant for Obama. We should demand her dismissal immediately. She tries to portray this terrible health care bill as Obama's historical achievement. Most if not all of the commentators on her article rightly see the bill and her writing about it as a sham. It is another giant government give away to corporations masquerading as something good for society. Stan has to go! Maybe we can't clean up Obama and the Democrats but we should be able to improve Alternet. Stan must go!

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

Historic
Posted by: corylus on Nov 9, 2009 8:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for the depth of its treachery and deceit. This bill is nothing more than a payoff to insurance companies and HMOs. The politicians who voted for this bill are traitors.

The power-mongers and corporate shills in Congress are the enemies of the people, and almost to a person, they deserve rendition to a mountaintop coal removal site, where they can at least contribute themselves to carbon combustion for energy. Otherwise, these bastards are lower than corporate swine excrement, and should be flushed into the bowels of the earth.

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

NY fiddler
Posted by: ccastleman on Nov 10, 2009 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is wrong, wrong sbout one no vote.

I wonder how inaccurate it is otherwise. Eric Massa also is a progressive who voted against the bill, and had stated he would from the start, because ir was not a single payer bill

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

Single Payer for All
Posted by: SV1000 on Nov 14, 2009 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time for civil disobedience:

http://www.indypendent.org/2009/11/12/you-must-go-to-jail/

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