House Steams Toward Health Reform Vote

Democrats Increasingly Confident They'll Have Unanimity Required to Pass $1.2T Bill in Saturday Vote

(AP)  The House is steaming toward a historic vote on President Obama's remake of the U.S. health care system, with Democratic leaders increasingly confident and the powerful seniors' lobby AARP about to get on board.

A debate and vote are expected Saturday on the 10-year, $1.2 trillion bill that would extend coverage to 96 percent of Americans, require employers to insure their employees and bar such insurance company practices as dropping coverage for sick people.

Special Report: Health Care Reform

Democratic leaders shrugged off Tuesday's election losses in governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey, focusing instead on their wins in two House races, a Democratic seat in northern California and one in New York that had long been held by the GOP. Both winners will be sworn in ahead of Saturday's vote.

Leaders stopped short Wednesday of declaring they had the 218 votes needed to pass the bill, and they were still negotiating language on abortion and immigration. But scheduling the vote meant those issues would have to be resolved and undecided lawmakers would have to declare themselves.

"It is human nature to sort of keep discussing until decision time is at hand," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said after meeting with second-year lawmakers Wednesday evening. "Decision time is upon us."

Said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: "We are on our path. We're very excited."

Action is slower on the other side of the Capitol, where senators are awaiting an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office on legislation written by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others. The timeline there appears likely to spill into next year.

The House effort is getting a big boost from the AARP, which was set to endorse the bill, something that proved a crucial stamp of approval when then-President George W. Bush pushed the Medicare prescription drug benefit through a closely divided Congress in 2003.

Officials with knowledge of the group's decision disclosed it ahead of Thursday's scheduled announcement, speaking on condition of anonymity because it was not yet official.

If the AARP's clout doesn't close the deal for House Democrats, Obama is expected to try to do it himself with a visit to Capitol Hill on Friday.

With no Republican backing for the measure, Democrats will need overwhelming support from their own. A festering intraparty disagreement over how to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion has not yet been entirely resolved, though language being circulated by one anti-abortion Democrat, Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, was getting interest from House leaders Wednesday.

Ellsworth's language would strengthen stipulations already in the bill against federal money being used to pay for abortions but still would allow people to pay for abortion coverage with their own money. That distinction doesn't satisfy the most ardent anti-abortion groups, which dismiss it as an accounting gimmick since the same insurance companies paying for abortions might also be getting federal money for other coverage plans.

The National Right to Life Committee issued a blistering press release Wednesday night calling Ellsworth's proposal "a political fig leaf made out of cellophane."

Ellsworth said that didn't bother him.

"I know what's in my heart, I know what's in my head and I think the big guy upstairs knows," Ellsworth said. He said that if his language is adopted he could "rest assured that no public dollars are going to fund abortions."

House leaders are also still grappling with illegal immigration, specifically whether illegal immigrants - who would be barred from getting federal subsidies - should be able to purchase insurance coverage within new government "exchanges" using their own money.

The White House does not want this allowed, but some members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other Democrats view that position as too extreme. Caucus officials were scheduled to meet with Obama at the White House on Thursday.

The House bill would provide government subsidies beginning in 2013 to extend coverage to millions who now lack it. Self-employed people and small businesses could buy coverage through the new exchanges, either from a private insurer or a new government plan that would compete. All the plans sold through the exchange would have to follow basic consumer protection rules.

Seniors in traditional Medicare would get improved preventive benefits. Also, the prescription coverage gap known as the "doughnut hole" would be gradually closed. However, seniors signed up for private insurance plans through Medicare could lose some benefits, as the bill scales back extra payments that the plans have been getting.

In addition to raising money by cutting payments to hospitals and other medical providers, the House bill boosts taxes on upper-income earners.

Meanwhile, the CBO released an analysis of the House GOP bill that found it would reduce the number of uninsured by just 3 million in 2019. By comparison, the more expansive Democratic bill would gain coverage for 36 million.

While the Democrats' bill would cover 96 percent of eligible Americans, the Republican alternative would cover 83 percent - roughly comparable to current levels. The budget office said the Republican plan would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 10-year period and push down premiums for privately insured people.

[BubbaRight]

If any healthcare legislation passes that even remotely resembles this monster created by Pelosi et al, it will break the financial back of this country for generations to come.

[getaclue09]

I would like to withhold judgement until I see what it will cost me every month. This is like buying a car and letting the dealer charge you after the fact.
Not everyone pays the same rate for car insurance but in my state we all must have it. The bad drivers pay more the safe one pay less.
What if you are a person living an unhealthy lifestyle, Should we all pay more for you so it will be fair, or do you pay twice what I do?
Once again let's see some real numbers before we sign off on this thing.

[Empire-George]

hungry, I guess the Democrats disagree with you about the impact of Tuesday's election losses.

Dems Reassess Party Agenda After Losses
Washington Post: While White House Denies Tuesday's Republican Victories Reflect on Obama, Many Dems See a Wakeup Call

Since they are the representatives, not you....their point of view is what's real, not the nonsense you state

[parkerj010]

Please join me in voting out every single incumbant currently in office. I'm a card carrying registered Republican and I've just come to the point where I believe that it doesn't matter whether you are a conservative or liberal, donkey or elephant... Our elected officials are ALL either incompetent, compromised, or "Celebrities" (as opposed to citizens).
I truly believe that the only way to take back our government and bring common sense back to Capital Hill is to start at the local level and get rid of every single one of the crooks who are currently robbing us blind or trying to regulate our sex lives or.... whatever the hell they are doing (it certainly isn't paying attention and protecting the common man/woman).
As Americans, we really have no one to blame but ourselves. We put these people into office and have simply not been willing to do our own thinking since. I know that if we get rid of them all it will get a LOT worse before it gets better, but does ANYONE believe that there is anything that will stop that now?

[hungry1968-17]

by jimmyc1955 November 5, 2009 10:33 AM EST
Hmmm - so you don't want competition from insurance companies to reduce costs. And you don't want individuals to be incented to control their health care costs. You simply want to create a massive government bureaucracy. Nice plan - hope it works better than the other government bureaucracies.







Not at all. I WANT competition.

I don't want Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NY to buy Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Pennsylvania, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maryland, etc, etc, etc until they become "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of America", and are deemed to big to fail.

We don't need Wellpoint, BC & BS, and Aetna to become the next Citigroup, Bank of America, and Merrill Lynch, and allow them to crash our already broken health care system, like the banks ruined the housing market.

You would think that after watching our economy being brought to it's knees because several businesses became "too big to fail" due to deregulation, that the LAST THING you would want is to bring that EXACT SAME PLAN to the health care debate!!!!

[Empire-George]

by louiville35 November 5, 2009 9:52 AM EST

What's even colder is turning hard working self reliant Americans who pay taxes and raise decent children who don't grow up to be problems into government dependent hopeless Americans.
___________

exactly.....they don't see it....I've never seen welfare being forced on the American people, as we do in this situtation.

(this is my opinion)

[hungry1968-17]

by jimmyc1955 November 5, 2009 10:22 AM EST
This was an argument for the UKs national health system - everybody would have equal health care - but it doesn't work out that way. the rich still get better treatment because they pay for private doctors and hospitals.

Class envy isn't a solution. Bleeding the rich until there are no rich no more isn't going to fund health care.







No were supposed to feel sorry for the insurance companies AND worry that were going to bankrupt the rich?

I'm supposed to worry about Lloyd C. Blankfein, Vikram S. Pandit, James Dimon, Rex W. Tillerson, Heath Schiesser, James J. Mulva, and James M. Cornelius?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

If Nancy Pelosi and her cronies think their Government takeover healthcare is great, then they need to participate in the same Government healthcare they are fixing to shove down our throats. Nancy Pelosi and AARP need to take the 1900 page bill and stuff up their .... The American people don't want it, it is too expensive and it will destroy healthcare in America as we know it.

[Empire-George]

So how is this reform going to be funded ? the trillion

Obama vowed to not increase the deficit by one dime...

now many ignorant libs suggest (including congress) that you can fund the Trillion dollar reform through "savings" and will throw a garbage PDF file at you speaking about all the "savings" Congress will get.....they even are calculating how much money they will raise by fining the American people for not having insurance.

The bottom line is Tax increases will pay for this reform....nothing else.....This is my opinion.

Something very interesting to see, what a Trillion dollars looks like in real life...check it out

http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

[hungry1968-17]

So you dispute the "garbage PDF file" from the CBO, (except when it proves your point), and you instead rely on "pagetutor.com" to see what a picture of a trillion dollars looks like?

Nancy Pelosi and AARP working together to push the worst bill ever put together by Congress. Seniors beware, when AARP and the Governement like it you will not. A Public Option will destroy healthcare as we know it in America, once the Government gets in, it will eventually drive all private health insurances out of business and all of us will have to take the Government Option, it will be a Government Monopoly, a single payer just like Obama wants, healthcare rationing and much worse quality of heathcare. A Government bureaucrat will dictate what procedures you may or not may not have, it will no longer be just you and your doctor. The results of what happens when Government takes over are already in: Social Security is bankrupt, Medicare is a disaster, the Post Office stinks, Amtrak loses $1 Billion every year, look at what the stimulus has done so far. Democrat Socialists want to run our country to the ground and gain more control over our freedoms.

[maddog0802]

Your Republican Bush regime is what has bankrupted our economy.
They rescinded all the financial rules that were put in place to protect our economy from runaway greed and corruption on Wall Street. As far as Social Security is concerned...it is not bankrupt, yet. Spending the USA's greatest budget surplus in history from the Clinton years on a trillion-dollar lie/war in Iraq instead of putting it in a lockbox like Al Gore wanted to do, also courtesy of Republicans. If not for Medicare there would be millions of elderly dying prematurely and in agonozing pain. If all of these government programs are socialism then I'll take that any day instead of letting the Republican fat cats on Wall Street steal us all blind and water-ski behind their yachts, while millions of our hard-working citizens suffer.

[hungry1968-17]

by jimmyc1955 November 5, 2009 10:18 AM EST
A better question might be why do you allow government to create state my state monopolies for insurance companies that ensure them profits regardless of cost? Why not remove the monopolies and let them compete?






I can't believe that you're calling for this!!

DEREGULATING the insurance comapnies, will allow them to merge into one, two, or three massive insurance companies, and they'll ALL be deemed "to big to fail".

With all of the companies that have become too big, you're advocating that we should allow the most deceptive, dishonest, and untrustworthy industry in the WORLD'S HISTORY, to merge endlessly?

And you think that these massive monopolies that are ALREADY SCREWING AMERICA, are going to suddenly start doing the morally right thing, with their history of immorality?!?!



Unbelievable.....

[jimmyc1955]

Hmmm - so you don't want competition from insurance companies to reduce costs. And you don't want individuals to be incented to control their health care costs. You simply want to create a massive government bureaucracy. Nice plan - hope it works better than the other government bureaucracies.

[hungry1968-17]

by anti-global3 November 5, 2009 10:16 AM EST

first of all many are illegals and the only thing they deserve is to be cuffed processed and sent home.
second they have the right and the liberty to take the necessary steps to get insurance, like cutting out everything but the basics you need to survive. That means getting rid of a vehicle, no expensive clothes, don't eat out and buy the basics at the supermarket. no cable tv, no internet, ect.
This sounds harsh but this is how the majority of the population lived prior to the 80s.
Personal responsibility is the key here.







Exactly what kind of job are they going to get with no vehicle to get there, and no decent clothes to wear?

Though I do agree with you on the illegal aliens.

[troutfishyman]

by louiville35 November 5, 2009 9:52 AM EST


What's even colder is turning hard working self reliant Americans who pay taxes and raise decent children who don't grow up to be problems into government dependent hopeless Americans.




Health care reform will do that? LOL! A little hysterical.......

[hungry1968-17]

lousiville is waiting on fresh talking points from Beck.

[hungry1968-17]

by louiville35 November 5, 2009 9:52 AM EST

What's even colder is turning hard working self reliant Americans who pay taxes and raise decent children who don't grow up to be problems into government dependent hopeless Americans.

Which has happened to millions of Americans in the US. These formally happy and productive people now live from hand out to hand out. So down trodden are they that they don't even put up a fight when foreign workers come in and take the jobs that should rightfully be theirs.






Exactly.

Now ask yourself, "Why am I supporting big insurance companies financially squeezing America's businesses out of the country?"

[michaelm07]

Why, because the government is squeezing us harder than the insurance companies. But supporters of Hellcare think it's just fine that the government has more control than the private sector. Hmm, sound bass ackwards to me.

[hungry1968-17]

How are you being "squeezed" by the government?

And how in the hell could that POSSIBLY compare to insurance companies charging private businesses $20,000 to cover ONE EMPLOYEE?!?!

[jimmyc1955]

A better question might be why do you allow government to create state my state monopolies for insurance companies that ensure them profits regardless of cost? Why not remove the monopolies and let them compete?

[louiville35]

Could it be because I haven't seen a reasonable alternative yet?

That a government run single provider system (and let's not kid each other that that's not the intent of this) will be better.

Because it won't, the answer is you are proposing is if it doesn't work get a bigger hammer. In this case you want to use a sledge hammer. Which in turn will lead to substandard care as bureaucrat after bureaucrat give themselves raises and better benefits while we suffer.. Case in point Washington where they control their own pay raises.

[hungry1968-17]

by jimmyc1955 November 5, 2009 9:35 AM EST
This assumes that the bill will reduce costs. The above article points out that this bill will INCREASE costs by ANOTHER $1.2 Trillion.

I don't like political parties and don't belong to one. I look at facts and the fact are telling me that we have a medicare trust fund that runs out of money in 8 years, social security even sooner.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

That is a government report stating they need a 16% INCREASE in payroll taxes to fund the social security system.

Where does all that money come from?

I am not opposed to health care - I am opposed to bankrupting this nation and its people.







So now your complaint is that Social Security has been mismanaged and abused, and needs to be reformed, so we should leave health care alone, and allow big insurance companies the ability to make BILLIONS off the health of sick and dying people?

[jimmyc1955]

Nope - that is deflecting the issue. It is simple. Let me try it this way.

I have $1 - but I have $10 in debt that must be paid or they will take my house. So I have a relative that is having problems - I help as much as I can - but is me taking on another $10 in debt going to help either of us if I loose my home??

The metaphor has value. China owns a lot - if not most of - our debt. IF they choose to dump it on the market it will devalue the dollar - massive inflation will follow. For our national security and all Americans financial well being we need to control and reduce our foreign debt.

And by the way - the profits of insurance companies come from the healthy and young - they pay in without paying out - just like social security.

[louiville35]

by hungry1968-17 November 5, 2009 9:30 AM EST
by louiville35 November 5, 2009 9:20 AM EST
LOL I'll bet that you have watched Beck more then me, probably listen to Rush every day to get your blood boiling as cold as you are.
----------------------------------------------------------
Cold?

Cold is worrying about insurance company profits, while they turn their backs on their customers, and force them into bankruptcy while they lose EVERYTHING.

THAT is cold.
=========================================================================

What's even colder is turning hard working self reliant Americans who pay taxes and raise decent children who don't grow up to be problems into government dependent hopeless Americans.

Which has happened to millions of Americans in the US. These formally happy and productive people now live from hand out to hand out. So down trodden are they that they don't even put up a fight when foreign workers come in and take the jobs that should rightfully be theirs.

[BlueDogDem]

If the Blue Dogs vote for the House bill, they had better be given some PROMINENT seats at the conference committee's negotiating table to hammer out the final bill.

While I want reform to pass this year, I am not pleased with the fact that in just ten days the cost of the House bill has increased from $894 billion to $1.2 trillion (a $300B+ increase). The president vowed the bill he signs would cost no more than $900 billion.

If we Democrats are to stay in the majority, we must show that we are better able to handle the country's checkbook than the Republicans, who ran up record deficits during the Bush/Cheney years.

[hungry1968-17]

by jimmyc1955 November 5, 2009 9:19 AM EST

I give every citizen my greatest concern. I know that the US is the worlds largest debtor nation (see this cnn article http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/03/amanpour.china/ ) and that the only way to pay the bill is to increase taxes - massively.

The US ecoomy is is dependant on consumers (70$ of gross GDP says Stanford http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/4931661.html ) for growth.

If you take money out of peoples hands, put it into government hands it is wasted. It doesn't fuel economic growth, buy new houses, buy new cars all of which are industries that employ Americans.

So I think I have a decent understanding of economic matters.







AGAIN -- your ONLY concern is for the debt / deficit.

You are completely blind (or ignorant) to the facts:

Businesses are being CRUSHED with the overwhelming cost of health care for their employees. Your solution: do NOTHING because we owe China money.

This is forcing companies to close their doors and move their operations overseas. Your solution: do NOTHING because we owe China money.

America's citizens that file bankruptcy, do so 60% of the time because of catastrophic health care. Your solution: do NOTHING because we owe China money.

6% of all employers are going to drop health benefits for their existing employees, another 13% are going to STOP offering benefits to new employees, and by the end of 2010, it's estimated that 40% of ALL AMERICANS will NOT have health insurance. (http://ehbs.kff.org/images/abstract/7791.pdf) Your solution: do NOTHING because we owe China money.






At what point do you realistically say, "You know what? We really CAN'T afford to use this failed model anymore!!!"

[hungry1968-17]

by louiville35 November 5, 2009 9:20 AM EST
LOL I'll bet that you have watched Beck more then me, probably listen to Rush every day to get your blood boiling as cold as you are.







Cold?

Cold is worrying about insurance company profits, while they turn their backs on their customers, and force them into bankruptcy while they lose EVERYTHING.

THAT is cold.

[hungry1968-17]

by louiville35 November 5, 2009 8:58 AM EST
I don't give a F what the democrats want. I'm a moderate Independent.-by hungry1968-17 November 5, 2009 8:40 AM EST
=============================================================================

Sure you are and Obama is the Easter bunny.

The only one left of you is Kim Jung Ill (and a few Berkley professors, terrorist professors.......)







Obviously you're one of those hate America extremists that worships at the altar of Beck, and believe that doing what's right for America is fascist and Marxist.

Good luck with that.

[louiville35]

LOL I'll bet that you have watched Beck more then me, probably listen to Rush every day to get your blood boiling as cold as you are.

[ttaoin2010]

Now Hungry, don't get upset....he just hasn't been converted yet !!

repeat the magic words after me

Ummmm, Ummmmm, Ummmm BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMAAAAAA !!!!!!