SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Nov 08 2009 02:41 am

since this will naturally be posted about, here it goes:

Quote:

Landmark Health Care Reform Bill Passes House 220-215

WASHINGTON — Handing President Obama a hard-fought victory, the House narrowly approved a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system on Saturday, advancing legislation that the Democrats said could be their defining social policy achievement.

After a daylong clash with Republicans over what has been a Democratic goal for decades, lawmakers voted 220 to 215 to approve a plan that would cost $1.1 trillion over 10 years and that Democrats said would provide relief to Americans struggling to buy or hold on to health insurance.

“This is our moment to revolutionize health care in this country,” said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and one of the chief architects of the bill.

Democrats were forced to make major concessions on insurance coverage for abortions to attract the final votes to secure passage, a wrenching compromise for the numerous abortion-rights advocates in their ranks. They hope to make changes to that amendment during negotiations with the Senate, which will now become the main battleground in the health care fight as Democrats there ready their own bill for what is likely to be extensive floor debate.

Democrats say the measure — paid for through new fees and taxes, along with cuts in Medicare — would extend coverage to 36 million people now without insurance and would create a government health insurance program. It would end insurance company practices like not covering pre-existing conditions or dropping people when they become ill.

The successful vote came after Mr. Obama traveled to Capitol Hill just before noon Saturday to make a personal appeal for lawmakers to “answer the call of history” and support the bill.

Only one Republican, Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana, voted for the bill, and 39 Democrats opposed it. The House also defeated the Republicans’ more modest plan, whose authors said it was a more common-sense and fiscally responsible approach.

Many Democrats in more conservative districts balked at the measure, signaling that those who could be vulnerable in next year’s midterm elections viewed voting for the measure as politically risky.

“Today’s may be a tough vote, but it was in 1935 when we passed Social Security,” Representative John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and the dean of the House, said as the debate drew to a close late Saturday.

http://current.com/items/91390310_landmark-health-care-reform-bill-passes-house-220-215.htm
or
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08health.html

[penis for your] Thoughts?

Posted: Nov 08 2009 04:00 am

I thought it was pretty much expected it would blow right through the house. The House has always been a given. It was just a matter of when they voted..not IF it passed. The Senate is a whole 'nother beast. I'm actually surprised that 36 Dems voted "nay".(well not really)

Filibuster wasn't an option in the House - the House has very structured rules on debate. The Senate allows for unlimited debate - it is the only place that the filibuster can be utilized, and only under specific circumstances. Should the senate elect to use the reconciliation process, those voting against it are boned as those voting in favor of it have the votes to pass the bill by simple majority. The filibuster can't be used under reconciliation. It seems this is the way it's going to happen: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/15/house-panel-paves-way-nuclear-option-health-care-reform/

To anybody who may be more knowledgeable about this: What is the legality of requiring health insurance under criminal penalty? The only other mandatory insurance schemes I'm aware of are for automobiles in certain states. But owning an automobile is a choice one makes to trigger the requirement. No car, no insurance. Simply being alive would trigger a requirement to give up 12% of your income to this scheme. They needed a constitutional amendment to impose an income tax. Now they want to impose a mandatory health care tax every bit is onerous as the income tax for many, for some more so. Are there grounds to challenge this legally?

What I DO know is that once passed, it is here to stay either until this country ceases to exist, or until some V for Vendetta-type shit occurs. The SCOTUS won't strike it down - they've taken a hands-off approach to social programs since the New Deal. They have all but said explicitly in opinions that the Court is not interested in the constitutionality of social programs. The Court knows that they are unconstitutional, but they will look the other way. There might be 3 or 4 votes that say it is unconstitutional, but the other 5 or 6 will cite precedent and allow it to stand.

Posted: Nov 08 2009 04:01 am

It's gonna be interesting to see how this all pans out... Exclamation

Posted: Nov 08 2009 07:50 am

If it was that close in the House, there's no way it's ever passing the Senate. Unlike the House, the Senate requires a 2/3 majority in order for a bill to pass, so another outcome as narrow as this one means no dice. They'll have to make a lot more compromises to the bill if it has any hope of passing the Senate.

Something as radically socialist as what the Dems are shooting for was always going to have major problems getting through Congress, so until they make it more moderate, I don't see heathcare changing at all for quite some time. There's just too many Americans who are not excited at the prospect of a ton of new taxes levied on them to further support the dregs of society.

Posted: Nov 08 2009 10:13 am

<div style="text-align:left;font-size:x-small;margin-top:0;width:512px;">Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Joined: May 22 2009 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 353

I'm sure of a lot of the Republican party has been compromised by the insurance companies, but just as much of it has to do with the voters.

If thousands of blue collar workers lose the health plan they have now because their company would rather give their employees this new public option rather than pay all the the new taxes they are going to be getting, it won't be good for whoever supported this thing next election. Obama has gone on T.V. many times and said “if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan.” But even non-partisan websites like factcheck.org says that is a falsehood.

Posted: Nov 08 2009 12:12 pm

Of course it's a falsehood. Logic dictates as much.
Why would an employer pay for expensive health insurance when they can just use the free/low cost government coverage for their employees? Because of that, after a while of most employers doing that, insurance companies will stop offering health coverage completely because there's no money in it anymore, and bam, suddenly we have total socialized healthcare.

Living in the UK with their National Health Service, I can tell you, we don't fucking want what they have here.

Hopefully there are enough senators (as I expect there are) that realize that simple economic fact and the bill will never pass.

Posted: Nov 08 2009 04:56 pm

Hopefully we can realize that healthcare should not be profit driven. Republican or Democrat, if you think making money off of sick people is good then your heart is smaller than your dick.

Posted: Nov 08 2009 05:25 pm

Ash Burton wrote:

Hopefully we can realize that healthcare should not be profit driven. Republican or Democrat, if you think making money off of sick people is good then your heart is smaller than your dick.

Here Here!