220-215

There are no words that can adequately express this moment. From the bottom of my heart thank you. Today we take the first step towards a more egalitarian, fairer, more sustainable America.

From the New York Times:

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.

Update [2009-11-8 0:2:57 by Charles Lemos]: The President released a statement congratulating the House on its historic achievement.

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.



Display:


Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

We would (not) have done so much better if Obama had given us (too much) more support.

</toldyaso>


Howard Dean is my go-to guy
by lojasmo on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:39:05 PM EST

Amen (none / 0)

And we're profoundly disappointed it was only '3rd dimensional chess.'  We wanted the big eleven.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whew! (2.00 / 1)

That was a close run thing.  So we didn't need our recently elected Congressional Democrats after all, really...  <chortle>

A statistical example of the 'art of the possible.'  Wow.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:40:48 PM EST

Re: 220-215 (2.00 / 1)

One Republican, Joseph Cao, voted aye, denying Cantor his sweet lock-step vote. Also of interest is that newly elected NY-23 Rep. Bill Owens voted aye. Good for him.

I just left a scathing voice mail at Walt Minnick's (D-ID) regional office (his DC voice mail was already full). I won't support him again, not if he's going to oppose all three major overhaul measures (health care, energy, and financial). But Minnick aside, I am very happy. What a good night for America. It's not a perfect bill, but it's a bill that passed.


Ever heard of a Blue Moose Democrat?
by Nathan Empsall on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:40:54 PM EST

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

We have still to learn this lesson when supporting candidates: a Reagan Democrat is a Republican, no ifs, ands, or buts.


by MainStreet on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

There is still the Senate. And that's going to be a big fight. I am happy to see this pass, but now comes the hard part.


by bruh3 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:42:20 PM EST

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

You said it, brother.  But the queue is getting shorter on who would dare oppose it.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

The key thing that needs to be pushed is that the House version contains the provisions that will allow for the expansion of the public option over time.

We need to fight for this like nothing else matters.


by bruh3 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Totally Agreed (2.00 / 1)

The beachhead has been secured.  And it is a 'holy grail' victory for our legislature.  That's the whole point, isn't it?  I must say, as I've suggested to you before, the one thing a Democrat must do early in their administration is establish an empowered and activist lower house.  It is our nature and our strength.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Totally Agreed (none / 0)

I am not against activism. It is necessary, but not sufficient. It must be accompanied with leadership from politicians (however much I don't trust them).

Martin Luther Kings activism only could matter regarding the Civil Rights Act, if I am remembering history correctly, because of LBJ.

I am happy this bill passed, but I am left wondering could we have gotten better if President Obama had not been convinced by Rahm that he had to go for less? We will never know the answer to that question, and that is the danger of precomprising- we can not know whether we would have had an easier strategy early on with more use of the stick given President Obama's early mandate.

But at this point, whatever spilled milk that I am wondering about does not matter. The House Bill is what it is. That means it is time for the next leg. The Senate, and the subsequent attempts to water down the House BIll in conference.


by bruh3 on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Totally Agreed (none / 0)

Honestly, Bruh, do you always carry an umbrella?  We've already discussed the Senate prospects and their options, so to speak, are narrowing.  The only thing the Senate fears and respects is an united House.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:21:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you must be joking (none / 0)

Until a couple of days ago, it was assumed that Stupak's amendment was a poison pill--passing it would mean dozens of pro-choice Democrats would vote against health care reform. Now that's been proven false. The Senate could easily reject the public option, secure in the knowledge that no "progressive block" in the House exists.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:24:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are You... (none / 0)

Interested in a friendly virtual wager on just that point?  That 'the Senate could easily reject the public option, secure in the knowledge that no "progressive block" in the House exists.'  I wonder.  I realise there are procedural issues but still, the electoral ones seem now pre-eminent.  The polls don't lie and NY-23 may have actually stiffened a few backbones on the subject.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are You... (2.00 / 1)

You want to wager on what?  The Senate will pass a public option?  If that happens, I suspect the top three reasons will be NV-SEN, NV-SEN, NV-SEN.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:50:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are You... (none / 0)

He's fulcrum for getting the House version of the PO through too I think. The question I have is whether there is union pressure to pass the House version of the PO on Reid?


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:52:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are You... (2.00 / 1)

All I really care about is passing some sort of public option in the Senate.  Better is better, of course, but there was a point in this process when we thought we might only get a public option from one house.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:00:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Are You... (none / 0)

Is that an offer or are you looking to make the same book?  Not disagreeing with you, either, on the causation.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:55:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Totally Agreed (none / 0)

I am a realist. So, I can get over a battle once it is done even while thinking about the next one. My mind is on the Senate.

For the record, this is how Democrats lose- we come to a certain plateau, and think we have won rather than thinking about the next step. We are at the half way mark. The conservatives are not done with us.

And, as was just described to you above, the danger of your assumption is that prior assumptions have already been proven wrong even in the House.

I won't be happy until the ink of Obama's signature is dry on the signed bill. So, if that depresses, that's too bad.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I Agree (none / 0)

As I said.  And the risk you raise is valid and well known, God help us, to us all.  So...  See ya' when the ink is dry.  But I'm guessing my expectations are a bit higher than yours after today's events.

Having said that, is there a time in the past ten months when our prospects looked brighter?  Except, perhaps, Inauguration Day?


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:53:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I Agree (none / 0)

We are up at half time. Don't get me wrong.  I am happy we just scored the first touch down of the game. I am just not willing to celebrate until the end of the game rather than than at half time. I don't underestimate the other team or overestimate my own. That's all I have to say at this point.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:59:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Honestly, Bruh... (2.00 / 1)

In my heart I am with you.  See ya' at the finish.  I think we have the ball a bit further down the field somewhat later in the game but we are definitely in the same cheering section.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:08:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

doesn't look like a touchdown to me (2.00 / 1)

We were driving the ball down the field and then settled for a measly field goal.

I hope that the public option could be expanded in future years, but it seems just as likely that the public option could simply fail to provide meaningful competition. Plus, we now have new limits on women's access to reproductive health care.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: doesn't look like a touchdown to me (none / 0)

I agree. But I'll take the + 3 now even if it isn't the + 7 I would have liked.


by vecky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:43:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Negation of Women's Rights... (2.00 / 1)

Which emerged late in this process is unarguably shameful.  But within it lies the seed for ultimate success.  The Republicans must now own this argument, that pregnancies are like the addictive damage of smoking.  And so forth.  It is a narrative which will ultimately destroy them at the ballot box among their own intimate constituencies.

Let's hear Sarah opine on those points.  Don't hold your breath...

We are turning over the rocks, one by one, of marginal, 'dog-whistle' Republican ideology and the squirming in the light of day is not pretty.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Negation of Women's Rights.. (2.00 / 1)

so, one way or another, more and more women actually will not have the choice guaranteed to them, and once again, it will be poor women who suffer the most.  

Too bad the economic considerations that require that not one federal cent be spent on this area of women's health do not extend to the area of government-sanctioned war, huh?  Lots of death and killing there, but I guess that's okay.  

This reform effort was already less-than-acceptable, but now, between the insurance companies calling the shots on what areas of women's health will and won't be covered, and the members of Congress who want to impose their own beliefs on everyone, I'm hard-pressed to understand why any woman should support it at all.

And I'm even more perplexed at how little push-back there has been from any corner of the Democratic caucus, from the party in general or from the so-called women's advocacy groups.  But then, I keep forgetting we have nowhere else to go, and are supposed to be grateful we still have accommodations, even if they are under the bus.

Two years ago, I would never have imagined that my reaction to much of what is coming out of the Democratic Party these days would be utter disgust accompanied by a louder and louder "F**K You!"

But, here we are.


by suzieg on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:42:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Negation of Women's Rights.. (none / 0)

My partner and I got thrown out of the Yale Club for breastfeeding our two-year old at the dinner table in 1997.  I was flabbergasted.  It's going to be a long fight back from the witch-burnings through sufferage to genuine equality among the New World's faithful.

But it doesn't follow, to me, that this bill should have been defeated as a consequence.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:56:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Negation of Women's Rights.. (none / 0)

America is a strange mix of the hedonistic and the puritan.

Sex is everywhere, but boobies are a no no.


by vecky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:50:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This (2.00 / 2)

and Stanford beating Oregon to be bowl eligible for the first time in 8 years.

That's a lot of history for one day.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:45:35 PM EST

Mojo for the Stanford cheer!! (none / 0)


by Ravi Verma on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:50:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Joseph Cao (none / 0)

I suspect the Stupak abortion amendment helped there.

Still not happy about the Stupak amendment.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:49:09 PM EST

certainly, it did (none / 0)

He had previously said he would vote against the bill if it included any funding for abortion (which of course it didn't even before Stupak amendment, but Rs said it did).


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:00:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: certainly, it did (2.00 / 1)

Here's a statement from Rep. Cao:

   Louisiana Republican Congressman Cao releases statement after voting in favor of Democratic health care reform bill

Interested in syndicating BNO News articles? Contact sales@bnonews.com for more information.

From the BNO Newsroom.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- Louisiana Congressman Anh "Joseph" Cao on Sunday morning released a statement after he voted as the only Republican in favor of the Democratic health care reform bill.

The health care reform bill, dubbed the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" (H.R. 3962), passed the U.S. House of Representatives in a 220 - 215 vote.

"Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana," Cao said in a statement released by his office. "I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding - if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children."

Cao wrote he obtained commitment from President Obama that he would work together to address the health care issues of Louisiana, including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. "I call on all my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues."

Cao said: "I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents." His yes vote received a lot of criticism from Republicans.

The Democratic health care reform bill also includes the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which will keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections for health care providers.

Cao said: "Before the Stupak-Pitts amendment was adopted as part of this health reform bill, the bill failed to explicitly include the longstanding policy prohibiting federal funding of elective abortion and plans which include elective abortion. Thank[s] to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, taxpayer dollars will not go to supporting elective abortions, and for thousands of my constituents, this was a top priority. By incorporating this amendment into the health reform bill, my colleagues and I made this bill better, and that is an achievement of which I will always be proud."

Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond, the archbishop of New Orleans, said he was grateful for Cao's vote. "I am grateful to Congressman Cao for his courage and determination to defend life. I appreciate his work to prevent abortion from being included in health care reform and for protecting conscience rights of health care professionals," he said. "I - and, I am sure, many in New Orleans would join me - [I] appreciate Congressman Cao's commitment to the people of New Orleans."

To be honest, I am worried for his safety.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well (2.00 / 2)

Here's one conservative Twitterer who wrote, "Hey Cao go back to Vietnam or whatever communist country you came from,... oh yes, my gloves R off ...."

Then complained "Very interesting: I've been called a racist 4calling Cao a communist &2goBack2 country he came from: http://bit.ly/SNEEz (wikipedia)..."

Also tweeted "interesting Wikipedia article on Cao father in a communist re-eudcation camp in Vietnam..HMMMM so was I offbase? http://bit.ly/SNEEz"

He is going to have a hell of a time these next few weeks.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:58:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (2.00 / 4)

Heh, the guy fled his home country as a refugee from the communists, his dad risked his life fighting the communists and spent seven years in a camp, and he still can't catch a break from these idiots.

If spending years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese somehow makes you a closet socialist, then I guess we can count on John McCain to vote for health care in the Senate.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:06:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (2.00 / 1)


"La révolution dévore ses enfants."

Georg Büchner - Danton's Death 1835


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:14:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: well (2.00 / 2)

It's beyond belief that hate that lurks in the hearts of conservatives.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:14:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: certainly, it did (2.00 / 1)

I would give him more credit if he had voted for passage before the vote hit 218.


by vecky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:22:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Touché (2.00 / 1)

But it is handwriting on the wall.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:35:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Somebody Has to Say It (none / 0)

Yes.  We.  Can.


by Shaun Appleby on Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 11:59:28 PM EST

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

Kucinich voted no.
Are you guys going to primary him?
Is Super Dennis dead to you now?
Well come on, come on, who's ready to cut off those $5 donations to your hero, the man you want to dump Obama for in 2012?
Come on, Bartcop, photohop the head of the Gimmie a Pony Left's answer to Michele Bachmann on that burned out ballerina you use to stigmatize any Democrat in elective office.
by spirowasright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:01:19 AM EST

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

his voted whether you agree with him or not was principled in that he did not think the bill went far enough. Whereas many of those who voted against it simply voted as they did because they were bought and paid for by the insurance companies.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:02:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Kucinich... (none / 0)

Voted no?  I agree it was a principled vote but the 'arc of justice' is there even if you reach down for it.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:26:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kucinich... (none / 0)

I am not going to treat the principled the same as the unprincipled when the arc of justice bends their way.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:34:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Aw... (none / 0)

C'mon.  How do you weigh Kucinich's principal against the potential benefit of this legislation?

In this instance it doesn't matter, and there is a time and a place for everything, but if this had failed on Kucinich's 'no' he would be in a difficult place.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Aw... (none / 0)

 I think principles are important. I am a moderate, but old school. Thus principles, character, etc are not things I take lightly.  I am sorry you don't understand that.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:47:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Of Course... (2.00 / 1)

Principles are important.  But as Groucho said, 'I love my cigar but at least I take it out of my mouth once in awhile.'


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:58:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of Course... (2.00 / 1)

Well said... this vote was close... too close. If we lost just 1 or 2 conserva-dems it would have failed. Kucinich let other progresses take the heat for voting for a watered down bill. But evetually his turn will come.


by vecky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:28:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Having Said That (2.00 / 2)

I like Kucinich and our party and universe would be the poorer for the lack of him.  He is a conscience-raising influence for all elected representatives and good on him.  I can't help but think that he would have voted with us if the outcome was in doubt.  Still, if not, he has a very personal path to tread to the Hades of lost causes.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:17:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (2.00 / 1)

His vote will be important come the final bill, after conference.

That said I imagine a) he waited until after it hit 218, b) He'll vote yea on the final bill, even if it's not principled.


by vecky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:26:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From Your Mouth... (2.00 / 1)

To Area 51's listening post.  No, wait...


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:20:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (2.00 / 1)

Oh, and somebody get a hold of Upstate Kent and listen to his dire predicitions of how this will mean the Democrats are toast in 2010.


by spirowasright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:03:44 AM EST

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

Sorry for the rants. On a historicalk note, like just about every other piece of progressive domestic legislation passed, this one clears the House by a slim margin.

Welcome to America.


by spirowasright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:04:57 AM EST

And Celebrate Us... (none / 0)

It was ever thus.  'Ich bin ein Athenian.'


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:27:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is really great news (none / 0)

Now we just need to get it through the Senate.  


by Kent on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:48:22 AM EST

Re: This is really great news (2.00 / 2)

How can I express my hope and expectation that you will help us negotiate our torturous path through this difficult time?


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:04:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

So, in the end, what does the public option look like?  I can't find any discussion of it.


by Drummond on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:31:16 AM EST

Re: 220-215 (2.00 / 3)

The house version according to some interpretation of it includes a step version that will include more and more people. It will start small but then increase to include larger size small businesses and their is a provision for the insurance comissioner to allow big businesses to join later if they so want, etc. The effect is that rather than 10 percent as is the current projection it could include up to 25 percent of the population, and that would in effect drive down cost in a similar fashion that medicare plus 5 would. Part of this is because the current house bill includes a provision that will allow even unemployed people without insurance who later find employment to keep their public option insurance plan. Another reason is that the assumptions about the number of people employed at small businesses, and the uninsured is probably much larger than the CBO assumes. There are other reasons.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

So no triggers or opt out provisions I assume.

And what about the Medicare basis for setting prices?


by Drummond on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:48:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

No trigger or opt out. BUt, also no Medicare plus 5. It would be negotiated. TO achieve cost savings for consumers like Medicare plus 5 it would have to grow bigger than 10 percent. That's why inclusiveness, which will affect size, is not crucial.  The bigger it is, the cheaper it is.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:49:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

by the way, jerome's concerns below are correct. This is a big problem in the bill, and why the patting on the back right now is a mistake. Even with the passing of this bill, the issues we are discussing will almost certainly have to be addressed again in a decade if the public option does not expand. Independent projection of health care premium costs without an effective PO was something like the price tag going from 12k to 23k per year in a decade. if that trajectory continues, the system will eventually collapses, and will go from 15 percent of GDP to over 20 percent. people down play cost containment, but cost containment is assess. For example, even if you allow for pre-existing conditions, if the policy is prohibitively expensive subsidies alone will not help in terms of structural issue with increasing costs. At best you would merely be hiding the cost for those that get the subsidies and drowning those who don't. The concern jerome is pointing out is that the PO is being structured to fail by making it cost too much.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

some are not too impressed:

"The plan will have low enrollment and little power to negotiate, causing the CBO to state as fact what I've long considered possible: That the public option could become a dumping ground where private plans jettison sicker people, while lacking the efficiencies of scale or negotiating power to get better rates or administer itself more economically.

As a result, says the CBO, a public plan's premiums might be higher than private insurance. While the CBO's word isn't gospel, it's entirely possible that they're underestimating the cost of any "public option" we're likely to see this year. The likeliest political outcome, once the House and Senate bills are combined, is a non-robust "public option" with a state-by-state opt out. The CBO didn't consider the opt-out when it came up with its shocking (to some) estimate.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-strana han/kucinichs-brave-health-vo_b_349857.h tml&cp"


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:19:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

Am not sure if that's reflective of the final bill though, as it comes from Nov 2nd:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/t ime-to-kill-the-pseudo-p_b_342370.html

Regardless, the Senate has to pass something, then prob a reconciliation comm... so by then is when you could actually tell... too bad those negotiations won't be on c-span...


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:22:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

I'm not afraid of the opt out.  I doubt any of the large states will have the political will to opt out, not even Texas.

And if the jettisoning of sicker people becomes a reality there will be immense pressure for compensating reform.  Personally I would be willing to pay for a public policy even if the premiums are a little higher.


by Drummond on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (2.00 / 1)

From Politico, of all places:


"Oh what a night," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said moments after the vote, after fielding a congratulatory call from President Barack Obama. "Without President Obama in the White House, this victory would not have been possible. He provided the vision and the momentum for us to get the job done for the American people."

Patrick O'Conner - House passes historic health bill Politico 7 Nov 09

One year out from election day it sounds like a party converging on unity to me.  Good for us.  Let us go and do more likewise.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:29:33 AM EST

Re: 220-215 (2.00 / 2)

They puff of smoke you saw was buzz over the GOP's Gubenatorial wins from last week disappearing.


by spirowasright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:00:36 AM EST

What is there to celebrate? (none / 0)

The Dems are no different than the Repubs.  They have allowed the "fundies" to insert their religious beliefs into this bill and some women on both sides of the aisle agreed.
Remember when the Obama supporters beat the Hillary group over the head with the Supreme Court possibly voting against Roe v Wade if the Repubs won?  Tell me the difference here if these types of laws and policies are voted in by the Dems who I thought would defend us and grant equal rights.  Both parties are nothing but shams and tonight proved that this fiasco had many authors.  Shameful.
by suzieg on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:27:43 AM EST

Re: What is there to celebrate? (2.00 / 1)

The perfect is the enemy of the good.  You've obviously got an axe to grind here.


So once again, we find that evil of the past seeps into the present like salad dressing through cheap wax paper, mixing memory and desire.
by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 05:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is there to celebrate? (none / 0)

Your comment is offensive. Abortion rights are not my issue, but the idea that you would respond with a slogan to someone else's rights being denied is deeply wrong.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:51:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is there to celebrate? (none / 0)

The Liberal Blogosphere was created so the avowed enemies of the good would always have a home.


by spirowasright on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is there to celebrate? (none / 0)

You don't get it and you never will. Women vote for Democrats over Republicans  due to in part this issue. If you are too stupid to realize how this hurts us with women, then there is little I can say that will get through the fog of what passes for brains for you.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:55:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is there to celebrate? (none / 0)

Sorry but if it comes down to passing this thing with the Stupak amendment or watching it die without it, I choose the former.  The amendment sucks but is it really worth delaying health care reform for another 10 years?

In regards to my "slogan", I thought that a quote from Voltaire was especially fitting given his penchant for social reform.


So once again, we find that evil of the past seeps into the present like salad dressing through cheap wax paper, mixing memory and desire.
by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is there to celebrate? (none / 0)

I am not the one you are going to have to convicne of this. It is the women voters who go into the voting booths trying to figure out why they should support Democrats. Your issues are not everyone else's issue for voting. This is not even my issue, abortion, for voting. But the idea that both you and another person are too dumb to realize you are crapping on an essential element of Democratic electoral viability would be disturbing if I truly thought you meant it.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:57:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is there to celebrate? (none / 0)

Have a great day!


So once again, we find that evil of the past seeps into the present like salad dressing through cheap wax paper, mixing memory and desire.
by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is there to celebrate? (none / 0)

I already am despite bizzaro people such as yourself who are more out touch with reality even as you claim others are. The reality is we need women to win elections.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Someone sounds bitter (none / 0)


by ND22 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (2.00 / 1)

wow, that was close. 220-215, we lose the ny23rd, Cao stays with the GOP, and it would be down to 218-217, imagine what Cooper would have done at that point!


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:11:53 AM EST

Re: There are no words? O-RLY?? (none / 0)

"ITYS" There's 4 words.


1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:26:15 AM EST

i'm not elated (none / 0)

why is the voice of reason ignored?

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentS ingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995


by citizendave on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:31:41 AM EST

Re: i'm not elated (none / 0)

Not even the extreme pro-life amendment could dampen enthusiasm. "We'll live to fight that battle," said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), a passionate supporter of reproductive freedom. "It took a hundred years to do health care. Nothing can dim that."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/08 /health-care-passes-the-sc_n_349783.html &cp


1st Law of Obamadynamics: For every action, there is a greater than equal criticism. In advance.
by QTG on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:36:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm not elated (none / 0)

kucinich makes the point, and i agree, that without a single payer option, this "reform" will only channel more money into the for profit insurance system that indeed makes its profit by denying care.

it befuddles me that the repubs acted so rudely, when this bill seems to include everything they stand for.


by citizendave on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:57:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm not elated (none / 0)

But they can no longer make a profit by denying care. Recission is banned, yearly caps are banned & pre-existing conditions are not an issue.

So they will have to look for other ways to make profits... that they will, but it is progress.


by vecky on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm not elated (none / 0)

the "other ways" they will make profits are by raising the rates they charge for "mandatory" insurance. my insurance went up 26% this year and that was without my ins-co being required to accept people with pre-existing conditions.

the only solution is single payer.


by citizendave on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:39:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i'm not elated (none / 0)

It's all upside for the republicans.  The insurance industry knows the republicans really have their interests at heart and the republicans get to tell the people that they opposed the bill because they knew it would only cost people more money to the benefit of the insurance industry.


by orestes on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

GET BUSY HARRY!


by RichardFlatts on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:32:54 AM EST

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

This b ill wont pass as is in the Senate. I believe the abortion details will stay but that we will see a state by state opt out as well. I also think your going to see further measures to drop the price tag of this bill. The house bill was always going to be larger and more expensive.....I dont believe this thing will pass without further changes. Those sentiments were also expressed on several shows this morning by Donna Brazile and other democratic analysts.


by BuckeyeBlogger on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:24:27 AM EST

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

The price tag of the bill? It is lower than the Senate bill. And the price tag without the public option is 1 trillion a year in additional cost to the American people. I keep saying you "conservatives" are penny wise, pound foolish. You claim to be concern with economics, but really at base you are just ideologues who have no fucking clue about basic economic issues.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:40:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

Oh and by the way the cost fo the hOuse bill is $1.2 Trillion versus $900 billion in the Senate.....last I check my math the hosue bill was more expensive. You can do math cant you?


by BuckeyeBlogger on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

I also love, by the way, how you play on people's ignorance of economic facts regarding health care. If someone did not know, for example, as I do that the cost of private premium amounts for most of the cost of health's rising part of GDP, and how that affects the ability of American companies to compete, then you can play the MSM game of pretending the bill is too costly. That the bill is deficit neutral apparently is also lost on you. Both together, means that there is no reason to try to shave anything off this bill regarding a cost factor of the bill, and there is every incentive regarding saving money for the American people in the private sector to want the House bill to be the final bill. Your arguments are a non issue that you throw out as a talking point for the ignorant. It is a sign of what is wrong with this country that lies can take the place of reality.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 10:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

Here is a basic economic issue numnuts...there is nothign in this bill that will do anythign to actually lower costs in the logn run...Why? Becuase until you change behavior and lifestyle you cannot make a real dent in healthcare costs arising from preventable diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and so forth. The impact on the economy is in the billions. Until individuals take responsibility for their own behavior as it relates to diet, nutrition and excercise, no amount of healthcare coverage will matter. If individuals would actually wake up to the fact that the majority of people taking high blood pressure and cholestrol medication could be prevented, nothing will change economically. Simply providing coverage doesnt prevent someone from continuing an unhealthy lifestyle. We have to practice lifestyle change and prevention individually first.

You keep believing that simply covering everyone will fix the problem. Do we need to ensure that everyone can get affordable access, yes. But unless we preach and practice prevention it wont matter. That cant just come from the medical profession, it has to come from parents and education. The excuse that we are too busy to eat right and excercise is a load of nonsense. Of course in your liberal world, its everyone else to blame for someone being overweight, or poor, or uneducated...


by BuckeyeBlogger on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 12:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't seriously believe this, do you? (none / 0)

Please tell me you're joking with this


by ND22 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:09:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

that was some sweet economic analysis right there, where are the numbers?

You make a good point, but it is not the only point, and is not the only cure for our mess, it is just an element.  Also, it is a bit unrealistics for people to stop eating the cheap food that is marketed at them 24 hours a day.  THat would be ideal in your conservative utopia where everyone has access to nutrituous food.

You make another good point about prevention....if everyone had good access to health care, we could be avoiding expensive emergency and reactive measures if we could diagnose, advise, and treat early, that too would save a boatload. But its hard to do when those that even have insurance are not covered for those kinds of treatment because the insurance company says its not a medical necessity, and thus won't pay for it.  


by KLRinLA on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 01:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

This nonsense abotu havinbg access to nutritious food is just that, nonsense. Purchashing fruits, vegetables and so forth is cheaper than the garbage that most people buy (ie. processed foods) . Just more excuses for people to continue behaviors that are detrimental to their health ( I dont have time, it costs to much...)


by BuckeyeBlogger on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


by bruh3 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 02:39:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

Prove me wrong....


by BuckeyeBlogger on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 07:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's a fact (none / 0)

The obesity rate in the UK is the third highest in the world, only 6% lower than ours, and their healthcare costs are MUCH lower.

Europeans also have unhealthy habits; smoking is a good example...ever travelled to Italy or France? Italians don't eat healthy either and Germans and Irish drink heavily...all these countries have much lower healthcare costs than our country.

The idea that all we need to do to lower healthcare costs is change our eating habits is so wacked out, it sounds like something that would come out of Michele Bachmann's mouth...or out of the mouth of someone who is running out of arguments.


by ND22 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0)

just...wow.


by ND22 on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 04:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

One last note, the House bill will never pass the Senate.....and even the House recognizes that...


by BuckeyeBlogger on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 08:12:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 220-215 (none / 0)

Just two more cents.

It is hard to equate this House legislation to the impacts of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy-Johnson, but it is a great step forward for social democracy, if I may use that European idea in place of liberal-socialism, that compromise between capitalism and communism, to achieve an economically fair and just economy, that serves everyone and not just the wealthy or the greedy, deluded middle-class.

Perhaps someday we will attain a truly socialized sinble payer government run medical care system on a par and perhaps better than those available in every country, except the US and Mexico.


by MainStreet on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 11:09:10 AM EST

Re: 220-215 (2.00 / 1)

Yea, cheerleading for incrementalism. I was thinking about how this stacks up as well, but just about everything socialwise for the past couple of decades measures up small compared to the previous progressive leaps. Only the wars this decade measure up to historical prominence of cost.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 05:12:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.