And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? …
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091108/D9BR59EO0.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.
“It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it,” said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.
In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.
Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government’s mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.
A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed.’
From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, “We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system.”
The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.
Nearly unanimous in their opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.
United in opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.
“We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, ‘this is making me sick,’” jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing “a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding” bill.
But with little doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer’s town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting “death panels” to hasten the demise of senior citizens.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government’s mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.
At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill’s most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.
The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation’s eligible population having insurance.
To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare’s projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.
The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear.
Democrats lined up a range of outside groups behind their legislation, none more important than the AARP, whose support promises political cover against the cuts to Medicare in next year’s congressional elections.
The nation’s drug companies generally support health care overhaul. And while the powerful insurance industry opposed the legislation, it did so quietly, and the result was that Republicans could not count on the type of advertising campaign that might have peeled away skittish Democrats in swing districts.
Over all, the bill envisioned the most sweeping set of changes to the health care system in more than a generation, and Democrats said it marked the culmination of a campaign that Harry Truman began when he sat in the White House 60 years ago.
Debate on the House floor had already begun when Obama strode into a closed-door meeting of the Democratic rank and file across the street from the Capitol to make a final personal appeal to them to pass his top domestic priority.
Later, in an appearance at the White House, he said he had told lawmakers, “to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America.”
Participants also said Obama had referred to this week’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are “what sacrifice really is,” as opposed to “casting a vote that might lose an election for you,” said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J.
It appeared that a compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion had finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.
As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.
But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.
Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but pulled back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.
One, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., detailed numerous other benefits for women in the bill, including free medical preventive services and better prescription drug coverage under Medicare. “Women need health care reform,” she concluded in remarks on the House floor.
A Republican alternative was rejected on a near party line vote of 258-176.
It relied heavily on loosening regulations on private insurers to reduce costs for those who currently have insurance, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. But congressional budget analysts said the plan would make no dent in the ranks of the uninsured, an assessment that highlighted the difference in priorities between the two political parties.
It was a theme of Obama’s remarks to Democrats at midmorning.
The president said Democrats have a 70-year history of creating and defending programs like Social Security and Medicare, Andrews said afterward, adding Obama had said the day’s vote “is going to define the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties for decades.”
—__
Associated Press writers Phil Elliott, Alan Fram and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
It’s all fun and games till it gets to the senate
So,despite the majority of American citizens wills,they press on regardless??? I cant wait to see the tremendous impact on our economy coupled with the mass exodus of Dr.'s (45-60% polled).
coupled with the mass exodus of Dr.'s (45-60% polled).
I call BS. Where do they think they are going to go?
Well. that’s just… totally false. On to the Senate!
And fuck Joe Lieberman!
these people have totally forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around.
And did the fine congresscritters put themselves under this plan?
I doubt it. It’s only the rest of us that are incapable of taking care of ourselves without a massive bureaucracy. The disdain for the American people that they hold is sickening.
I have stopped trying to debate the nuances of this terrible idea with most people.
I just point out, or ask them to imagine, a huge, fat, middle-aged person driving along, yapping on the cellphone and eating a twinkie while wandering in and out of their lane. Not using a turn signal and generally behaving as though the world exists and bends for their every whim.
You know the type.
Now just imagine that you are paying for their health insurance, on top of whatever you are paying or working for as part of your compensation at work. Because that’s where we’ll be if this clears the Senate.
Don’t forget that they’re on their third pack of cigarettes for the day.
Maybe we’ll ban fat people like they banned flavored cigarettes(how this didn’t include the President’s menthol I do not know.)
It might be B.S. as there isn’t necessarily a lot a places they can go. However, how about the majority of older docs 5-10 years close to retirement just decide to call it quits because it is just too fucking ridiculous to put up with all this shit just to make a living. There are a lot of doctors in that age group. The sad part is, that the attitude in your statement reflects your attitude towards doctors in that “how dare they leave because we are going to effectively cut their pay or make their lives harder”.
Most people who are not doctors do not understand the dedication and drive it takes to complete the education and training, while maintaining the grades/proficiency to graduate. You can’t just show up to class, fall asleep, and get a degree. While your average joe was out at the bar/club, tailgate party, and whatever else, that student doctor was hard at work either studying, practicing on each other, or seeing patients.
The way the admin is trying to portray this is that doctors that oppose this are “greedy”. It really has nothing to do with it. The root of American excellence has always been that if you are intelligent enough and are able to have the dogged determination to succeed, then you would have a chance to “make it in life”. Many large companies (Microsoft, Dell, to name two) were started by young guys when they were still students and they had the determination to see everything through. To put it bluntly, doctors dedicated 1/3 of their lives to get training so that the remaining 2/3 will be comfortable.
Remember, doctors don’t collect pensions or have company or government retirement benefits. Most LEOs, military, fire dept, or goverment (ESPECIALLY Government…local, state, federal) all have pensions. You put in your time on the job (I don’t know the exact number, but it’s usually between 20-30 years) and you’re pretty much guaranteed a comfortable retirement. Most doctors start their “adult” lives with over 200K in debt, and they start that life usually 10 years behind everyone else. They also work between 50-60 hours a week. It takes a lot of time to manage a practice that employs 5-10+ people, fight with insurance companies to get paid for the service you already performed, and keep resubmitting denied claims to medicare because you didn’t put down the correct code.
The president’s “cigarettes” are probably for medicinal purposes.
This is your government at work…promises broken and programs mismanaged (I received this as an email so it is not my work, but I wanted to share it with everyone).
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He Promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month – and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘Put Away’ – you may be interested in the following:
----------THEN---------------------------------------------------
Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961
Insert by Vincent Peter Render,
If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If I recall correctly, it was a democratically controlled Congress.
>From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.
-------------WORSE STILL------------------------------------------------
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security
(FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US..
------------------THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL’S BACK !!-------------------------------------------------
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981
Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
ANSWER: That’s right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. (jIMMY CARTER) (DEMOCRAT, TERM OF OFFICE: JANUARY 20, 1977 TO JANUARY 20, 1981 AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAI D A DIME INTO IT!
“Damn”, have you ever seen a Jack-ass eating briers…!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have”.
Thomas Jefferson
This bill passing makes me nervous due to the truth in this statement, and how it will affect me. I just recently quit my job where I was stuck in an office to go back to school to take medical school pre-req’s. I’m truly hoping my ability to perform as a physician is not totally hindered by an even more intrusive government presence.
My prior office job was a managerial position in a private practice, and the amount of crap the docs had to go through with Medicare, not to mention Medicaid, patients prompted us to not accept new patients carrying those plans, unless Medicare was the secondary insurance. Ridiculous… I hope the senate is awake, folks.
I have already made the decision that I will try to guide my kids away from getting into the medical profession. Most docs can’t survive economically, and definitely not emotionally, if all they had were medical and medicare patients to choose from. This healthcare bill despite its “well-intentioned” beginnings will rapidly end up like all previous programs designed for the public good. They are ways for lawmakers to keep people voting for them and in return, paying them the government cheese.
Unlike most businesses where if you say that the price for an item or for your labor is $10 and you get close to $10 for it, doctors bill $10 and get between $4-$7, if they get anything at all. Payment is usually received 2 months or more after the time of service. Many tests are performed for free as a service to the public. When I first started, I would charge patients for their initial examination and let them have free followups. I did this to try to be fair to the patient as I was in this for my desire to care for people, not to make obscene amounts of money (which I don’t). Do you know what happened? 1/3 of my day was spent seeing people for ridiculous things that they claimed were free because they were followups. I was run ragged, and obviously that kind gesture which was abused, stopped after 1 year. Being “fair” to others wasn’t being fair to me. To this day, I still give free service, but it’s much more limited.
If this program ends up expanding and killing private insurance like most think it will, then all doctors will end up being, in essence, employees of the state…maybe the only good thing about that is that while you get paid less, you also don’t have to work very hard because you can’t get fired, plus, you get the guaranteed retirement pension, but I doubt it because to the “Left”, doctors are currently part of the “evil rich”.
Well…not anymore. It seems to the democrats that if you are somehow successful in this country then you must have cheated to get there. So the only way to even the playing field, because after all how can you say one person and their choices made in life are better than another, is to tear down success and reward failure.
uwe1,
Thank you for your insight. Unfortunately the providers I worked for share a very similar experience. I’m going to be foolishly optimistic about the fate of this bill, and continue to stay in my room and study on this beautiful Sunday… cuss.
I honestly do believe some form of reform is needed. This ain’t it.
The whole concept of excluding pre-existing conditions is flawed. I’m an insurance underwriter (property and casualty, not life & health) and when I’m presented with a worse than average risk I simply price for it. Group plans make those pricing decisions less painful because the risk is diluted. The entire health insurance industry is based on the absolute avoidance of risk, this has to stop.
But no way do I want this level of government intrusion.
No, it’s not that you “cheated.” It’s that the government and all the less “fortunate” people made it possible for you and handed it to you, so you owe them for it. It wasn’t your hard work, sacrifices, or the risks you took personally.
George Soros is a perfect example of this mentality.