Top Democrat: House Will Pass Health Bill

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer Says Passage Will Come Saturday; AARP Announces Support for Legislation

(AP)  The second-ranking House Democrat predicted that historic health care legislation will be passed Saturday as the AARP, the nation's premier lobbying group for the elderly, announced it was signing on to the bill.

Rep. Steny Hoyer said House leaders expect to have the 218 votes needed to pass the sweeping bill, which would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured people and ban insurance companies from turning people away. President Barack Obama has the health care overhaul the defining social goal of his young administration. Hoyer acknowledged that the vote could be tight, and he said his prediction of passage is predicated on the expectation that a couple remaining obstacles can be surmounted.

"I wouldn't refer to it as a squeaker, but I think it's going to be close," Hoyer said. "This is a huge undertaking."

The Maryland Democrat said language on abortion and illegal immigrants was still being worked out, but predicted those issues could be solved in time for Saturday's scheduled debate and vote on the 10-year, $1.2 trillion legislation.

"We certainly have well over 218 people who say they want to vote for the bill," Hoyer said in an interview with wire service reporters.

"The trick is making sure they have a comfort level with the provisions they are particularly focused on to allow them to do so," he said. "So I think that's what we're in the final stages of trying to get to."

Obama planned a rare trip to the House on Friday to try to win over wavering lawmakers.

Strong opposition persists on the Hill, however, and Republican leaders planned an appearance later Thursday outside the Capitol at a rally and protest led by anti-big-government "tea party" activists.

Hoyer said the bill's endorsement by the powerful seniors' lobby AARP, announced Thursday, was a significant boost.

AARP Senior Policy Adviser John Rother said the 40-million strong organization favors the House bill because it closes the coverage gap in Medicare prescription benefits, puts strict limits on what health insurers can charge older workers too young for Medicare and creates a voluntary, long-term care insurance program.

"The bill does improve quality, and it improves access," said Rother. "When people hear this message from us, it will have impact." AARP will reach out to its state and local chapters ahead of the House vote, particularly in districts with a large numbers of older people and a lawmaker who's undecided.

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network also announced its support for the legislation Thursday, and the American Medical Association, which had endorsed an earlier version of the bill, scheduled a midday press call to weigh in.

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 AARP's backing is a big boost for the House effort. Support from this group 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.

With no GOP backing, Democrats will need overwhelming support from within their own caucus. An intraparty disagreement over how to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortion has not yet been entirely resolved, though Hoyer said that language being circulated by one anti-abortion Democrat, Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, seemed likely to be the basis for an agreement.

Ellsworth's language aims to strengthen stipulations already in the bill against federal money being used to pay for abortions. It would still allow people to pay for abortion coverage with their own money.

That distinction doesn't satisfy anti-abortion groups, which dismiss it as an accounting gimmick. They say federal subsidies for insurance coverage would not be clearly segregated from private funds used to pay for abortions.

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," he said.

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. Hispanic 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.

[will-scratch]

I think I remember our president not to long ago tell somebody that America is not a christian nation.

[stn_sage]

The problem with the health care bill now is...that the House and Senate are scurrying around in such a hurry to pass ANYTHING...in order to try to grab some credit on a campaign pledge...one of MANY that HAVEN'T been fulfilled YET...that WHAT is passed will end up doing more harm than good!

It won't cover enough people...it won't provide for competitive insurance rates...it will continue to protect the insurance/medical/pharma industries...it will require people to take part in a bad plan...it will penalize those who don't...and the cost is projected, they don't know for sure what it will be in the end...on and on and on.

[OldGeezer43]

Tighten your belts, it looks like another government run program. Even the best plan possible would suffer under the direction of bureaucrats. I wonder how many agencies will spring in to being. I love the definition of "bureaucrat": "An official who works by fixed routine with out exercising intelligent judgement". Enough said.

[bc-1948]

Don't know if you are over 65 or not from your login name, but if you are, I'll bet you are glad you have Medicare - which has been a great "
government run" program. It's needing to be revamped - but it is still a great program - with much lower operating costs than any private plan.

One of it's biggest problems is the Republican passed private insurance plan called "medicare advantage." They are securing the healthy seniors with various minor items, thus leaving the more costly seniors in traditional medicare - which in turn increases the amount the government gives the private companies because it is a formula based on the average cost of a patient in traditional medicare - plus giving them an additional $1,400 per patient - a total ripoff. It's the same shell game that Time and Golden Rule used to play on to create an ever shrinking pool of insureds, ending up with people that had medical conditions and couldn't get other insurance - thus justifying huge premium increases (remember the old slogan - "your rates can only go up if everyone - in the pool- goes up" - They would write a new policy each year - so the "pool" was just those that took the insurance in that year.

Give it a chance - it doesn't get fully implemented until 2019 - so there is a lot of time to look at all the various parts and make improvements where needed.

[msimamaji]

We are supposed to be a Christian nation, OldGeezer43. What would Jesus do? According to the Gospels, Jesus healed the sick. Never once did he ask about HMO's or about pre-existing conditions. The current for profit medical system is anti-Christian and has no place in a supposedly Christian country.

I might point out that your comments are identical to what Ronald Reagan said about Medicare. I might also point out that the so-called systems of "socialized" medicine in Europe are all cheaper than our system and according to a UN Survey also have higher ratings. Even the systems conservatives love to hate Britian and Canada are better than our - and babies in Britian and Canada have a higher survival rate than babies in the U.S. Check out the stats on the 2009 CIA Fact book, if you don't believe me.

If you are worried about expanding bureaucracies - keep it simple. Just let people buy their insurance for medicare - that could serve as the public option. In any rate, we need a health care system based on the teachings of Jesus, not on the profit motives of wall Street.

[OldGeezer43]

Tighten your belts, it looks like another government run program. Even the best plan possible would suffer under the direction of bureaucrats. I wonder how many agencies will spring in to being. I love the definition of "bureaucrat": "An official who works by fixed routine with out exercising intelligent judgement". Enough said.

[hungry1968-17]

by endurorob_5 November 5, 2009 2:53 PM EST
Where is the coverage about the protestors at the capitol? Instead CBS pushes the Live Chat With Katie. No wonder FOX is kisking there a.s.s. in ratings.







What?

You've never seen a gathering of 200 people before?

Hell, half of the attendees were republican members of congress!!

[kluzer12]

Call your congress representative today, stop this government take over of our health care system. We do not want a single payer system and that is what the public option will lead to.

[hungry1968-17]

Why don't we want a single payer system?

Did Beck give you that talking point?

[bc-1948]

First - this isn't a single payer system - you have been listening to Fox and Rush to much -

Second - it's not a government takeover - just an attempt to finally do the moral thing and provide coverage for all Americans -

Would I like a single payer system like Medicare? You bet!! - but almost all the universal coverage systems around the world are not single payer systems - and, having lived overseas, most people are happy with them.

[element51]

If the bill does contain wording that would allow abortions to be paid for I believe that the opposition would be voicing their concern and that the provision would be removed as all congressmen and women are aware that the public would not approve. The above article addressed the fact that work is still being done on the abortion wording in the bill. There is now a note of desperation among the Republicans as they are dangerously close to failing their corporate masters who do not want this bill to pass. They have done everything they could think of to block passage but at no time have they offered any alternatives that did not favor big business. The time has arrived when the majority of Americans have finally figgured out that the Republicans are the party of big business and do not really care about working Americans. We have seen what "trickle down economics" has done to the country and we have watched as big business has striped us of our jobs and left many of us in the dust. Sooner or later the tipping point will be reached and I believe we are close. Bring back America!!!!!!! I want to see "Made In America" on what we buy. It's time.

[maakahill]

Speaker Pelosi?s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi?s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under ?Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed? the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker?s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It?s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under ?Insurance Rating Rules.? The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account - and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees? health benefits plan.

Speaker Pelosi?s 2,032-page health care monstrosity is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy. The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion

[hungry1968-17]

You're quoting John Boehner, and expect it to be taken seriously?

[bc-1948]

You do realize that most private insurance plans cover abortions don't you? And the exchange plans are private insurance plans - not government plans.

You take a big leap to get to government funded abortions - just not in there.

Besides, this bill doesn't supersede the Hyde Amendment.

[endurorob_5]

Where is the coverage about the protestors at the capitol? Instead CBS pushes the Live Chat With Katie. No wonder FOX is kisking there a.s.s. in ratings.

[USA_is_back]

"kisking"? the only a.s.s that Fox is "kisking" is the millions of dollars they are making off of you ignorant wingers.