The House of Representatives passed a sweeping health care bill Saturday night with a tight vote of 220-215, making it the biggest expansion of health care coverage since Medicare was created more than 40 years ago.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act, or H.R. 3962, restricts insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition or charging higher premiums based on gender or medical history. It also provides federal subsidies to those who cannot afford it and guarantees coverage for 96 percent of Americans, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
However, turning the bill into law remains uncertain.
A 1.15% margin of superiority is not an overwhelming referendum.
In fact, this will most likely be be a disaster for those democrats who voted for it and will face the voters in just a little less than 12 months.
By the way, what is voted into law can be voted out of law. Its a two-way street, its just a little harder to repair damge than to avoid it.
Pelosi and crowd have never defined with any significant level of professionally acceptable specificity just who those people are who are not insured and whose ‘need’ justifies ‘junking’ the existing healthcare system.
The have violated the guidance of the common sense adage, “If it isn’t broken don’t fix it.”
They refused to sit down as ladies and gentlemen and discuss this national issue with the 48.85% who voted against it. Instead, they used almost thug like tactics to ‘have it their way.’
‘Seeded in’ this bill is new law that will frighten and anger the average citizen.
The medical community, that is stretched thin in many parts of the country, will likely see a dramatic lose of existing medical practitioners and a decrease in the quality of those seeking a career in the medical field because the incompetent federal government will limit the financial compensation that medical practitioners can earn.
Is the public aware of just how much time out one’s life that medical education and medical practice demand?
Is the public aware of how much medical education costs?
Is the public aware that these highly educated and intelligent medical practicioners can find greater financial rewards in other fields of endeavor?
This law was not achieved by an old-fashioned and coooperative Democrat+Republican effort, it was achieved more by a “brown shirt” led effort of a minority within the Democratic Party against American political tradtions. It is an “out with the old order and in with the new order” fait accompli.
As quoted in the CNN article: “Democrats voted for the bill and a Republican voted for the bill. That equals bipartisan,” Pelosi said later. Unbelievable.
Pelosi also promised to post the bill 72 hours before a vote…I am waiting for the end of the culture of corruption in DC
A somewhat more correct statement would be that the opposition was bipartisan, since all but one Republican and 39 Democrats voted against the bill. But in fact this is a lopsidedly partisan bill.
#4 is absolutely correct, from Jennifer Rubin at Commentray Magazine:
“One would think such an historic and noble action, as the Democrats have styled it, would enjoy robust support from the full spectrum of the House Democratic caucus. But in this case, only those who occupy safe seats (or think they do) can be corralled. If Pelosi gets her 218 votes, it will be unprecedented. It is fair to say that never will a piece of legislation this sweeping (and damaging) have been passed over the opposition of so much of the electorate and on the votes of such a narrow ideological slice of the governing class.â€
God help us all.
50.57% is still a majority the last time I looked. And it is significantly less a majority than what the polls is the majority of Americans who favor health care reform, including the public option.
To the best of my knowledge, the bill was posted 72 hours before the vote. It was amended slightly (e.g., stronger language about government funded abortions) on the floor, as often happens. I don’t think anything requires a bill amended in the course of final debate must wait yet another three days before a final vote.
And what we are seeing is that there is much more freedom and diversity within the Democratic party than in the Republican party which marches lockstep to the ideological leadership of that party. Of course the Republican congressman who voted for the bill knew he would be toast come November.
Note to the 40 Democrats who voted for it because it excludes abortion: You want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? If you think the Democrats have ANY intention of keeping that ban, you may be too stupid to wander the streets without an armed escort.
#7, public opinion polls have been showing consistent public opposition to this plan, in the neighborhood of 55% opposed, for some time.
This was an ideological vote on both sides. Despite public denials, the Democratic vote is in favor of moving the country towards single-payer government medical care, and the Republican vote is in opposition to central control.
#7–Here’s why this is a bad bill. We have never defined what we are trying to fix. This bill fixes delivery of medical service while increasing the cost. In actuality, and there are volumes of data to support this, delivery is not the problem; cost is the problem. As an example, Grady Hospital in Atlanta delivered $360,000,000 in free, unpaid, and non-reimbursable medical care last year. And that is just one public hospital in one city. Do the math. Yet, in this bill, the government is going to reduce the delivery/availibility and increase the cost. Do we need to fix health care in America? Of course. But this just will make matters worse because it doesn’t address the problem. And why are we not addressing the big four cost drivers–obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and self induced malidies from smoking, alchol, drugs etc.? (In fact several states are planning on encouraging detremintal drug use, so they can tax it). Why are we not addressing medical legal issues? Why are we not excluding non-legal aliens? Because this is a political bill and not an attempt to fix medical care. If becomes law, the federal government will be in control of betweem 42 and 46% of the US economy, depending on whose #’s you buy into about how much they already hold (ie between 30 and 34%). I don’t like that; and I believe it to be extra-constitutional. And one other thing–in all those polls you mention, when people are told the cost, roughly between 75 and 85% of those in favior, change their minds.
more from Ed Morrissey:
The Democrats wheedled, cajoled, begged, and finally abandoned its defense of abortion — truly a watershed moment — in order to get their version of ObamaCare passed … in the House of Representatives, where they enjoy a 75-seat majority. In the end, they could only muster a five-vote win on Nancy Pelosi’s bill out of that strong majority. Until this week, most had assumed that any ObamaCare bill would pass the House easily, but that the fight would be in the Senate.
So what does this 220-215 vote tell us? Capitol Hill Democrats know that this bill is an albatross. It’s true that Pelosi was able at the end to negotiate votes to allow a few at-risk Democrats that supported the bill to oppose it in the final vote, but even that tells a tale of fear and consciousness of unpopularity. The razor-thin vote, as well as a number of earlier, more sincere defections, show that this bill was a radical and expensive approach to fix a 13% problem — and even most of the Democrats know it. . . . We always thought the fight was in the Senate, so the only real surprise yesterday was how weak Pelosi actually was on ObamaCare.
#7-Here is a link that refutes the idea this bill was posted for 72 hours prior to the vote :www.weeklystandard.com/…/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp
I will expect unemployment to reach 11% maybe 12%. This will be due to the fact that many businesses won’t hire or expand until they figure out how health care reform will impact them. Good Wall Street Journal posted here the other day about this.
#13–Dave B. The NY Times reported yesterday that real unemployment is already at 17.5%. That’s because the unemployment offices are instructed to remove people from the figures if they have given up looking for a job, usually because of non-availibilty. NOTE: This is from the NY Times, not Fox, etc.
Thank you David, I was thinking of the “official” unemployment. This bill will ba an albatross around the neck of small business!
Here’s a good take on what happened:
But we can’t really complain (well, I can since I didn’t vote for the Democrats) – elections have consequences and we knew going into the election what those consequences would be.
12. Dave B wrote:
[blockquote]#7-Here is a link that refutes the idea this bill was posted for 72 hours prior to the vote :www.weeklystandard.com/…/pelosi_breaks_pledge_to_put_he.asp[/blockquote]
Your link is broken. Ellipses don’t work in URLs.
The bill taken up by the House was presented on Friday, October 29th–more than a week before the vote. When it was presented it was stated that it would be posted on the Internet 72 hours before the vote to be taken on Saturday.
10. David Keller wrote:
[blockquote]Grady Hospital in Atlanta delivered $360,000,000 in free, unpaid, and non-reimbursable medical care last year. And that is just one public hospital in one city. Do the math.[/blockquote]
And exactly who paid the $360 million? I’ll give you a clue–it wasn’t “free”. The cost was passed on to (a) taxpayers, (b) insurance companies, and (c) other patients. In other words, people in Atlanta, Georgia and the U.S. paid that bill.
[blockquote]But this just will make matters worse because it doesn’t address the problem. And why are we not addressing the big four cost drivers—obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure and self induced malidies from smoking, alchol, drugs etc.?[/blockquote]
It would seem that these issues are being addressed by numerous governmental, public and private agencies and groups at all levels from your neighborhood schools and clinics all the way up to the federal government. Of course what is lacking is the inability of any of those groups to compel you or anyone else to make healthy life choices. And I suspect that if government tried, you’d scream bloody murder about your liberty to choose unhealthy things. At least that has frequently been the case when schools (for example) attempt to shut down junk food in the cafeterias, eliminate candy and soft drink vending machines and the like.
[blockquote]Why are we not excluding non-legal aliens?[/blockquote]
Which takes us back to your Atlanta hospital. Suppose an illegal alien is injured on the job. Will the 9/11 operator verify his status before dispatching an ambulance? If the ambulance is dispatched, who pays? He is wheeled into the emergency waiting area. Will the triage nurse check his immigration status before triage? If not, who pays for the triage. If he is treated, who pays for the treatment? And look at the other side of that same coin–if you are seriously injured in an accident, will you have to wait while the 9/11 operator verifies that you are legally in the country? Will you have to wait in the emergency room while the staff verifies you are legally in the country?
Septuagenarian, none of your emergency room scenarios apply, since emergency rooms are already required to treat all comers, so no change there.
This bill, besides requiring people, with risk of both monetary penalties and jail time, to purchase a product designated by the government, will increase total costs and not address root causes of that increasing cost, among which are preventive medicine caused by excessive malpractice non-economic damage awards, price controls in Medicare, and lack of competition (insurance products cannot be sold across state lines). The plan will tax not only individuals but also manufacturers of medical devices and pharmaceuticals. We can expect costs to increase, not decrease, especially with the enormous regulatory load imposed industry-wide by this proposal.
Good intentions do not necessarily produce good solution.
re: illegals: Treat them, verify their status, and send them home when they are well, and then bill their home country consulate for not helping to enforce the immigration laws of this country.
I like this Septuagenarian. He points out inconvenient facts.
[url=http://resurrectiongulfcoast.blogspot.com/2008/01/january-2008-update.html]The Rabbit[/url].
What would happen if we all just collectively said “no”? What if we all just refuse to comply? What if we all refuse to fill out the myriad of forms that are sure to be “required”? What if we all flatley demand our 10th Amendment rights that protect us from this kind of petty tyranny? There aren’t enough jails…and if they think the economy is bad now, wait till they get a load of 55% of us all calling a “wildcat strike” and just sitting it out. The power of “No” is wonderous.
What if?
18. Katherine wrote:
[blockquote]Septuagenarian, none of your emergency room scenarios apply, since emergency rooms are already required to treat all comers, so no change there.[/blockquote]
I was responding to someone who seemed to think that hospitals provided a lot of “free” treatment. They don’t.
[blockquote]This bill, besides requiring people, with risk of both monetary penalties and jail time, to purchase a product designated by the government,[/blockquote]
Yes. If you are going to have universal health care which includes a private insurance option, there will be penalties for those who try to cheat the system. If Joe, in Atlanta, decides he doesn’t want to purchase insurance, then if he gets sick and shows up at that hospital he is going to get “free” treatment paid for by taxpayers and those who buy insurance. Why should the rest of us pay for Joes’ “free lunch”? Of course, there’s aways the “Don’t get sick; and if you do get sick, die quickly” school of thought.
[blockquote] will increase total costs[/blockquote]
That is by no means certain. We already have the most expensive health care system in the world per capita and the cost is rising much faster than the rate of inflation. There is also little evidence that we are getting what we are paying for. And health care is getting even more expensive without reform. Employees right now in the fall of 2009 are discovering that the “enrollment period” is offering them far less in terms of benefits for far more in terms of cost.
[blockquote]and not address root causes of that increasing cost, among which are preventive medicine caused by excessive malpractice non-economic damage awards,[/blockquote]
Since malpractice suits are typically civil suits brought in state district courts, not federal courts, I’m not clear why “constitutional conservatives” are so hep on Congress telling state legislatures and courts what they can and cannot do. Here in Texas the legislature passed a medical malpractice tort reform act. I’ve not heard doctors reporting that their malpractice insurance premiums have dropped or that they no longer have to practice “defensive medicine.” But damages are limited by Texas law. The main problem is that the state licensing board isn’t getting rid of bad doctors.
[blockquote]and lack of competition (insurance products cannot be sold across state lines).[/blockquote]
I always find this canard amusing. Health insurance giants do, in fact, sell their products “across state lines”. Cigna, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, etc. all operate in whatever states they chose to operate. They also spend millions to lobby to prevent any change in the state-by-state approach.
[blockquote]Good intentions do not necessarily produce good solution.[/blockquote]
Battling to keep the status quo doesn’t necessarily produce good results, and indeed even fails to achieve its goal.
19. libraryjim wrote:
[blockquote]re: illegals: Treat them, verify their status, and send them home when they are well, and then bill their home country consulate for not helping to enforce the immigration laws of this country.[/blockquote]
You’ve got to be kidding. Here in Dallas County, Parkland Hospital cannot even get Denton County to pay for the freeloader from there. And you expect hospitals to get foreign consulates to pay up. ROTFLMHO!
19. libraryjim wrote:
[blockquote]re: illegals: Treat them, verify their status, and send them home when they are well, and then bill their home country consulate for not helping to enforce the immigration laws of this country.[/blockquote]
You seem to think that the Democratic Party is as monolithic as the GOP. I have news for you, it isn’t. Good grief, it even puts up with Joe Lieberman. As Will Rogers said,
[blockquote]I am not a member of any [i]organized[/i] party — I am a Democrat.[/blockquote]
It’s as true today as in 1935 when he wrote it.
Dear Septuagenarian, if you can tell me just how this plan will reduce costs, I will be interested to read it. Medicare hasn’t reduced costs; to the contrary, and it’s got a massive fraud problem as well. I simply do not see how this gargantuan new regulatory system would improve the situation.
Katherine asks:
[blockquote]if you can tell me just how this plan will reduce
costs, I will be interested to read it.[/blockquote]
Some of the cost cutting is rarely discussed. For example, transitioning paper medical records to electronic records. For example, my doctor spends a considerable amount of our time when I go in for any reason, digging through several inches of medical records looking for information which would be readily available to him if my records were stored on computers and he could access the information electronically. Then there is the cost of his office staff and space to maintain those paper records. This also would reduce error.
If there were some sort of universal health care, then people without insurance would be more likely to get minor conditions treated early before they became major. They might be more likely to get a flu shot–or if they come down with flu to go to the doctor for Tamiflu–before it became major pneumonia requiring hospitalization. They would be more likely to heed the early signs of diabetes, heart disease and cancer when the condition is more easily treated. And if the plan covered annual checkups, all the better. A major part of our medical costs involves “end of life” treatments. And lack of early intervention in what can become life threatening is one way to cut costs.
The principle of insurance is to spread risk. And the wider the insurance pool the lower the overall risk. If insurance is optional, then the pool is restricted by those who opt out. The young, healthy, non-smoking, athletic, single twenty-one-year old guy may opt out of the employer’s plan. So one day he starts coughing up blood. He goes to the emergency room where it is discovered that he has testicular cancer that has spread to lungs and brain, requiring surgery to remove the testicle and also brain surgery to remove the lesions in the brain. He must undergo months of chemotherapy. He piles up medical bills in the hundreds of thousands. Who pays? He has no insurance. For the sake of this argument, he has very minimal savings and a modest income (which stops after sick leave runs out). Unfortunately, as I have pointed out earlier–we pay. It comes in the form of higher doctors and hospital bills for us to cover their expense. It comes in the form of higher insurance premiums because of those higher medical bills.
Let’s look at the other case. Insurance companies currently refuse to insure those with pre-existing conditions and cancel insurance for those who develop major, costly illnesses. Yes, that reduces the cost of medical insurance for the rest of us–and also increases the profitability of the company. But you now have a group of people, with huge medical expenses, who cannot get insurance except in an extremely expensive (and unaffordable) high risk pool. So they do not insure. But they still need treatment. So we are back to the hospital emergency room paid for by taxpayers and higher doctors and hospital bills.
It should be noted that the bill eliminates the exemption of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies from anti-trust laws, ending monopolies and opening competition in the marketplace. Conservatives always tell us that competition reduces cost, and monopolies and trusts stifle competition.
The presence of a public option, guarantees competition. Consider the claimed “inefficiency” of Medicare. The director of the medicare program draws a public salary: Executive Level IV: $149,000. The equivalent CEO of Cigna draws a salary of $1.06 million, a bonus of $3 million and other perks worth $8.32 million. In the first quarter of 2009, Cigna spent $450 million on lobby expense. Guess who pays for those millions? Which is the more cost effective?
I am always amused at those who tell us about how inefficient government is. Medicare, USPS and Amtrak are always favorites. If government is so inefficient, then surely private insurers have no fear of a public option’s competition. It seems that both USP and FedEx can compete with USPS quite successfully. And here in Texas Southwest Airlines and even American Airlines and Greyhound compete successfully with Amtrak.
Thanks for you reply, Septuagenarian, but you haven’t convinced me. I favor preventive medical care as much as you or anyone else. However, it doesn’t reduce costs. We all die of something, and we cannot put off those end-of-life costs forever. They will be incurred. If we’ve taken care of ourselves and gotten check-ups, we may very well be healthier longer, which is an intangible good, but it doesn’t reduce total medical care costs.
Medicare is essentially a monopoly. Its availability plus the taxpayer subsidies and mandated underpayment of medical providers ran competition out of the market. In a few years when I hit 65, I will have two options: Medicare, or no insurance. The price squeezing from this new program, if passed, will further reduce the ability of Medicare patients to find doctors. Why would a doctor elect to treat me if he’s not going to be paid a reasonable sum for doing so?
The USPS, Amtrak, and Medicare keep plugging along because they are monopolies. The Postal Service has a legal monopoly on personal mail; UPS and FedEx compete very effectively where they are allowed to, which is express shipments. The Postal Service is currently in a lot of trouble because people are no longer using physical mail much. We can expect the same trajectory for private health insurance if there is a “public option” supported by taxpayer subsidies. It will push private insurers out of business. That is its intent. And even without the “public option,” private insurance is going to be even more heavily regulated than it is now. Its products will be specified by the federal government, and it will have to cover whatever the feds say it must.
I had a long email exchange with a younger liberal relative of mine. She concluded it with the (I think correct) statement that we have an ideological difference. No discussion of how much this is going to cost and whether there are more cost-effective solutions has any weight with her. She believes the government should provide health care and doesn’t think that businesses should be allowed to make a profit on health care.
Note: the Democratic party did NOT put up with Leiberman, in fact they gave him the boot, and he ran (and won) as an independent.
Note: And when Leiberman returned to the Senate he was admitted into the Democratic Caucus and allowed to retain
chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.