Health Care Tops Congress' Full Agenda

Back from Break, Lawmakers Will Also Face Bills on Clean Energy, Consumer Protection and the Financial Industry

(CBS/AP)  President Obama and Congress are both back from vacation, and this morning everyone will hit the ground running.

It's no exaggeration, reports CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante, to say that President Obama's political future is riding on the appeal he will make for healthcare reform tomorrow. CBS' Bob Schieffer said yesterday that "this may well be the biggest week of the Obama administration so far." If Mr. Obama fails to get a health care reform package, Schieffer said, "he'll be in trouble from here on."

But before reentering the fray on health care, the president addressed schoolchildren on the importance of responsibility - a speech that spawned some conservative critics to charge the Mr. Obama with trying to "indoctrinate" a captive audience of kids to his political agenda.

First Assignment: Health Care Reform

But it is Mr. Obama's speech on health care reform before a joint session of Congress tomorrow that is really crucial - and the president previewed his arguments to union members at a Labor Day rally in Cincinnati.

"It's time to do what's right for America's working families, to put aside partisanship, to come together as a nation, to pass health insurance reform now," he said.

The nation currently spends $2.5 trillion on health care, but an estimated 46 million Americans have no health insurance.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

The president reiterated his support for government-run public insurance program, even though White House officials have made it clear that he's willing to sign a bill without it - a potential concession that has angered many of his supporters.

Some analysts believe Wednesday's speech will be President Obama's last chance to regain control of the debate.

"It's important for the president to remind people what's in this reform for them, and also to be a little bit more specific," said CBS News political analyst John Dickerson.

In a fresh sign of divisions in the president's own party, a key House Democratic moderate said he can no longer support legislation that includes a new public insurance plan to compete with private industry.

And in the Senate, any hope of bipartisan agreement hung in the balance as a small group of negotiators on the pivotal Finance Committee prepared to meet in a last-ditch effort to reach consensus on a compromise bill.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., took the lead in July in negotiating changes to House Democrats' health overhaul bill to make it more palatable to moderates. He voted for it in committee with a public plan - something most House liberals say they can't do without.

But Ross said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess he could not support a bill with a public plan.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

The six Finance Committee senators - three Democrats and three Republicans - planned to meet to consider a new proposal that might be the last, best hope for an overhaul agreement. The proposal by the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, leaves out the government-run alternative favored by liberal Democrats.

Four congressional committees so far have produced partisan plans for revamping the nation's health care system. Baucus had said he would move forward with a plan if there's no bipartisan agreement by Sept. 15, but the chairman now faces new pressure to get a deal ahead of Obama's speech.

Baucus would impose a fee on insurance companies to help finance coverage for uninsured Americans.

It's not clear whether that would win support of two key Republicans in the group, Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The Baucus proposal reflected many of their priorities, chief among them the decision not to include the so-called public option to compete with private insurers.

Grassley said Tuesday that the administration had been "all over the ballpark" on the issue before Congress' summer recess and that he's still interested in finding a bipartisan consensus, if possible.

Asked on CNN about the prospect of the talks scheduled to resume later Tuesday, he replied, "We won't know until we meet. ... The good and the bad of the president speaking this week is we've had to speed up the work of our group to have something better ... and that's bad because we probably should have taken a little more time."

Grassley said he was concerned that any fee charged to insurance companies would end up getting passed on to other premium holders, and he embraced the notion of nonprofit health care cooperatives to help provide coverage for the uninsured - an alternative to the public plan.

Saying Americans voice have been heard, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said on "The Early Show" today he does not believe a public option will be part of a final health care reform package. "While I think certainly the president will mention that in a speech Wednesday night, I do not think it's going to be a part of a plan that passes unless it's done through reconciliation, which to me is not the route to go."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said that there is a consensus among the public: "People want to get more affordable health care. They want to have stability, so if their kid gets sick, they don't lose their health care."

Klobuchar told "Early Show" anchor Harry Smith, "You're starting to see some people talking about coming together here. I think that there are many things we can do. First of all, we need to put strong regulations on insurance companies so they can't punish people just because their family member gets sick. You have to be able to take your insurance with you when you go someplace, if you change jobs or you lose your job." She also said that because small businesses pay 20 percent more than large corporations for health care, a public option would allow them to buy into a pool like the federal employee health care plan.

"People like Amy I know want to work to solve this problem," Corker said, "but my hope is what we'll do is move away from those things that separate us, let's take an incremental step, let's do no harm, let's do something that will stand the test of time, increase competition, create more access, and let's move away from those things that have been the issues that have separated our country and caused so many people around our country to be concerned about their own health situation."

Klobuchar said President Obama's speech is "incredibly important. This is his moment put some meat on the bones with these proposals. I think Americans have learned so much in the last month, so they are ready to hear from him."

Despite all of the heated exchanges of the summer, Klobuchar said, "people are ready to listen and to learn and I think it's very important [Obama] focus on the affordability issue, the cost, how we can make this system work. The Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, if the hospitals in the country use the same protocol they used for chronic diseases, we'd save $50 billion - $50 billion in taxpayer money every five years. That's just one example."

[Klobuchar was referencing a December 2008 white paper by the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice which said adopting the Mayo Clinic's organized practices strategy would save 30 percent of the nation's health care costs for acute and chronic illnesses.]

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama was set to meet at the White House Tuesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

[VirginiaGentleman2]

Do you consider Israel as having a socialist government? They have a national single payer national health care system. Are they dumber then us or they have determined the single payer system saves money? Or maybe they care more for their fellow citizens?

[Daves1221]

Don't let opponents suffocate E-verify, by buying our politicians.

Slow as it might seem E-Verification given a chance to perform, will extract illegal immigrants from the working positions and replace them with American workers. Just like earlier ICE raids foreigners were removed from poultry plants, packing industries and lines of US workers took their places. Those workers who believe they have been wronged can easily rectify this situation at a Social Security agency? But the open border lobby will not mention that way to resolve the problem? Only those individuals, who realize they can no longer fool human resources and employers, will not venture into a government realm. Now that the federal courts have overwhelmed the special interest lobbyists, thousands of jobs offered by government contracts, will overtime remove the illegal worker stigma of those contractors and subcontractors, who have used cheap labor for decades, stealing jobs from Americans.

Whistle blowers can connect with the IRS at there HOT-LINE 1-800-829-0433 GOOGLE their website! The IRS is not kind to employers that seek to elude taxes, pay under the table for illegal activity in any place of work. THERE COULD ALSO BE A REWARD WITH A HEAVY FINE OR PRISON SENTENCE FOR THOSE WHO DON'T COMPLY. ICE informants also have a hot-line to contact with information this agency. Nor have we stepped from the pro-illegal worker quagmire yet, as Democrats and many Republicans will use any blockade that halts millions of impoverished people from coming to America. Stepping stones are already there, including the under funded single strand border barrier and not the originally planned two-tier system?

Fading ICE raids on businesses and the altering of the 287 G regular police enforcement and so weakening the powers of arrest? E-Verify only has the power if every business is required to use it throughout the United States? Without any breather we must maintain an aggravating bombardment of our politicians at 202-224-3121. Tell them you want a permanent, all encompassing E-Verify for new and long time workers and insist they do not rescind the 1986 Immigration laws. Positive amendments for US workers, not the slow overhaul for bringing into our nation more destitute people to be exploited by millions of reprehensible companies. If you are sympathetic towards a public option health care for every American, this cannot be established by allowing illegal immigrants to tap into the system?


Their must be certain lawful compliance that identifies US citizens and permanent residents, who enter the system but also dismisses foreign nationals. Any second immigration reform BLANKET AMNESTY legislation would automatically give acceptance to millions of legalized people already here, bankrupting any health care agenda. MORE FACTS TO READ AT NUMBERSUSA & JUDICIAL WATCH.

[curiousQ]

ok please excuse me.. I'm a little off subject... but I keep reading this bit of information, and please feel free to correct me if I am misinterpreting it: Apparently, our congressmen do not have understand a bill before they sign it. According to what I've read, they seem to be okay with signing a bill they have not read... simply because they "didn't have the time."

are we kidding? am I hallucinating? these people are not held accountable for not even reading a bill before signing it? a bill that could change the future of an entire nation... this is legal? Congress has the responsibility of determining the path of a country, yet they are held to the same standard of accountability as a 6 year old.. They just looked surprised when the US' affairs go down the poo-poo-shoot because of their lack of "time". Well, I suppose the surprised look is genuine..

I just don't get it... please... someone tell me I have this all wrong.

If it is true, this is how I shall behave whenever I cannot honor a contractual obligation: "well... I didn't have time to read it, but I still signed it... oh well." The only difference is I would not get off the hook for such blatent irresponsibility... I would get sued or jailed.

[proudscot]

If I go to a hospital here (Scotland) I get treated, regardless of the complaint, no questions asked.
Supposing, just supposing, someone without insurance had been in the World TRADE Centre 9/11. And been rescued. But injured.
Throw them out of hospital?
Get real.
Your country is a disgrace if you cannot treat human beings just because they cant afford it, and if you reduced the amount spent every year inventing and building new things to blow people to bits by just one tenth, you'd be left with more than enough to treat everyone in your country, and some of the illegals too. They're human beings, believe it or not.
I saw one get treated recently in a hospital here, and his blood was RED!
Land of the free my A*%

[Questionews]

Under this bill, will illegals still be able to walk into the hospital emergency room & get things checked out like:

Sore back
A cough.
Stiff neck
Pulled muscle
Nausea / upset stomach
Stuffy nose
Headaches

My sister is an in house pharmacist at a large hospital in Sacramento & she sees it all day long. Most of the illegals view the hospital emergency room as their doctor's office and they come in all the time with just such ailments & the hospitals continue to treat them without being provided any ID or address. The bill goes where?? Down the rabbit hole! I don't see that practice ending anytime soon.

[hungry1968-16]

by Acehacker1 September 8, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
It has become apparent that the Prez can't get HR3200 passed (even by 52 votes in the Senate) with a "Public Option" in place. So does he opt for leaving the left out to dry and pass a compromise or does he try to pass this. He (and even pelosi) knows that it will not pass in the house.

So does B.O. ditch the left and try to get "some" legislation passed or does he back the failed play? This will be interesting.







Is that what Limbaugh said?

Brainless lemming.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:41 PM EDT
Why can you not comprehend the simplest of concepts, Hungry?






Okay stupid, let me break it down as simply as I can:

Check fraud is a crime.

Is it REQUIRED in the penal law system, that banks MUST verify someone's ID before accepting a check from them, or do they do it voluntarily, so that they don't get "stung" by a bad check? They don't HAVE to check ID if they don't want to - there's NO LAW that requires it. But banks do it, because they don't want to get burnt. If someone says that they don't have an ID, they don't get their check cashed.





The same thing will happen with health care. If someone CANNOT prove their identity, then HOW can the hospital bill the services and treatment back to the government's "public option"?

They can't.

[hungry1968-16]

by Acehacker1 September 8, 2009 2:39 PM EDT
There is only so much poo that you can swallow in the name of "party"!







I don't know about that.

You conservatives swallow up the BS from the right, like you're all individual sewage treatment plants.

[hungry1968-16]

by Acehacker1 September 8, 2009 2:36 PM EDT
Mort: Why do you keep bothering to address this guy?






He can't stand "facts" and he tries desperately to fight them all the time.

I don't know why.

[Mortarman29]

Okay Ace...after Hungry's latest post, I believe I have seen the error of my ways, as you pointed out. So I too will put Hungry on ignore...as it is truly a waste of time continuing with him.

Thanks again, Ace.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:27 PM EDT
Again, Hungry...answer the question. Why are Dems opposed to putting an enforcement clause i nthe bill that states healthcare providers must discern citizenship BEFORE treating the patient (obviously except in emergency circumstances)? Why are they opposed to putting teeth in the bill?







Asked and answered at 2:29.

And AGAIN - the law states that the public option WILL NOT pay for treatments on illegal aliens, so why would a hospital voluntarily NOT CHECK the patient for ID to make sure they are legal citizens?

Do you REALLY think they're going to take a chance on getting stuck with a bill, or end up performing procedures for free?!?!?



Man, you are clueless!!!

[Mortarman29]

Why can you not comprehend the simplest of concepts, Hungry?

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
Yep. They bil lthe government all the time for things that arent checked on.






That's called fraud, and people go to jail for it.

Yet another lie debunked.

Next.

[Mortarman29]

Sorry, the whole government is rife with fraud and abuse. It never ends. Even when a few go to jail. Sorry...another Hungry statement debunked as usual!

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:22 PM EDT
How does it prevent when there is no enforcement? It is like passign a speed limit law, and not putting any cops on the street to enforce it. Pretty much worthless.

Without enforcement, there is no provision to stop illegal aliens. They arent going to read the bill and go "crap, it is i nthe bill. Hey honey, we cant get healthcare in America." No, they can see there is no enforcement involved, so can walk right in and get care.

Because no one is asking "do you belong here? Yes? Please show me proper identification."

Again, why would the Dems vote against that if they are for illegals not getting care?






We're not talking about speeding or shoplifting when no one is around to see it, moron.

We're talking about someone actually going into a hospital and being SEEN by a doctor.



And what kind of identification would you like?

Not everyone has a driver's license or passport, and last I checked, birth certificates and social security cars are just pieces of paper that don't verify a person identity like a picture ID does.

THAT is why the democrats killed it - there's not a national ID to support a provision like that.

[image_by_m]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/08/politics/washingtonpost/main5294409.shtml

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:09 PM EDT

Why not just put in the bill "docotrs and provider of healthcare will receive and review adequate documentation that shows the patient is a US citizen"??? Why cant we do that to insure they dont get coverage?






The law says that illegal aliens WILL NOT get health care.

How will the hospital bill the "public option" for their care, if they aren't legal citizens?

Do you really think that a hospital or doctor is going to treat an illegal, if they aren't going to get paid?

[Mortarman29]

Yep. They bil lthe government all the time for things that arent checked on.

[Mortarman29]

Again, Hungry...answer the question. Why are Dems opposed to putting an enforcement clause i nthe bill that states healthcare providers must discern citizenship BEFORE treating the patient (obviously except in emergency circumstances)? Why are they opposed to putting teeth in the bill?

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:14 PM EDT
Lol.






It's not LOL, stupid.

It's shooting yourself, and every other American citizen, along with our economy in the foot.

[Mortarman29]

LOL.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 2:09 PM EDT
Here's why I agree, Hungry. There is NO enforcement in there. When the GOP tried to push in an amendment to allow enforcement of this (by asking for ID to have a patient show they are a citizen), the Dems shot it down.

So, there is no enforcement of illegal aliens getting healthcare. No way in the program for providers to discern if the patient in front of them is eligible to receive care.

Why not just put in the bill "docotrs and provider of healthcare will receive and review adequate documentation that shows the patient is a US citizen"??? Why cant we do that to insure they dont get coverage?







You're changing your tune - you said, "There is no provision to prevent illegal aliens from getting univerals health care coverage."

I posted the provision for you to actually see, and now you're changing the subject. This is how you try to circle your way out of every issue where you get caught looking stupid, because you ignore the facts.


The FACT is that there IS a provision, which prevents illegal aliens from getting health care, proving that you're listening to conservative pundits, rather than the facts.

[Mortarman29]

How does it prevent when there is no enforcement? It is like passign a speed limit law, and not putting any cops on the street to enforce it. Pretty much worthless.

Without enforcement, there is no provision to stop illegal aliens. They arent going to read the bill and go "crap, it is i nthe bill. Hey honey, we cant get healthcare in America." No, they can see there is no enforcement involved, so can walk right in and get care.

Because no one is asking "do you belong here? Yes? Please show me proper identification."

Again, why would the Dems vote against that if they are for illegals not getting care?

[slownewsday_5]

Sorry, Mort - he caught you fair and square, and now you're changing your argument.

Yet another example of you not being willing to admit when you've been beaten.

And go ahead and say you weren't - it will only change things in your own mind.


.

[Questionews]

Big Whoopee that health coverage for illegals is excluded in the bill. They will continue to show up at the hospital emergency room & getting their free health care there like they do now. And at the highest possible cost route to boot. Is there anything in the bill to restrict the type of service illegals get from showing up at the emergency room? No! I say if they are in a life threatening condition then yes, treat them. Other than that, show them the door. Better yet send the bill to their country of origin. Let their universal health care plan pay the bill here!

[hungry1968-16]

by Acehacker1 September 8, 2009 2:04 PM EDT
The definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect different results.

Therefore, to continue to try to debate with hungary makes me insane,(or at least, unintelligent).

He now goes to "ignore" until he can come forward with a meaningful point.







Incredible!!

I post LINKS to the legislation, spell out the section and page number to counter the lies that you're fabricating, and you STILL disagree, and believe that Beck and Limbaugh are correct, even though you physically see the proof right in front of you?!?!?!

[Mortarman29]

Lol.

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 1:59 PM EDT
I agree. There is no provision to prevent illegal aliens from getting univerals health care coverage.







Even though I just posted the link, the page, and the section number, you would rather believe a lie from Beck and Limbaugh?!?!?


http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Page 143, Section 246:


"SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

[Mortarman29]

Here's why I agree, Hungry. There is NO enforcement in there. When the GOP tried to push in an amendment to allow enforcement of this (by asking for ID to have a patient show they are a citizen), the Dems shot it down.

So, there is no enforcement of illegal aliens getting healthcare. No way in the program for providers to discern if the patient in front of them is eligible to receive care.

Why not just put in the bill "docotrs and provider of healthcare will receive and review adequate documentation that shows the patient is a US citizen"??? Why cant we do that to insure they dont get coverage?

[hungry1968-16]

by Mortarman29 September 8, 2009 1:54 PM EDT
Again, Ace. I could sit here all day and Hungry will continue to prove me right. He is like the Energizer Bunny. He jsut keeps going, and going, and going....






So you agree that there is NO PROVISION to prevent illegal aliens from getting universal health care coverage?

[Mortarman29]

I agree. There is no provision to prevent illegal aliens from getting univerals health care coverage.