Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, November 7, 2009

House narrowly passes health care bill

November 7, 2009

Advertisement

How they voted

The U.S. House passed a Democratic-written health care bill by a 220-215 margin. A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Democrats — Moore, Y.

Republicans — Jenkins, N; Moran, N; Tiahrt, N.

— In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.

The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.

Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.

A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed.'

From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."

The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

Nearly unanimous in their opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.

United in opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.

"We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, 'this is making me sick,'" jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing "a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding" bill.

But with little doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer's town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting "death panels" to hasten the demise of senior citizens.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.

The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance.

To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.

The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear.

Democrats lined up a range of outside groups behind their legislation, none more important than the AARP, whose support promises political cover against the cuts to Medicare in next year's congressional elections.

The nation's drug companies generally support health care overhaul. And while the powerful insurance industry opposed the legislation, it did so quietly, and the result was that Republicans could not count on the type of advertising campaign that might have peeled away skittish Democrats in swing districts.

Over all, the bill envisioned the most sweeping set of changes to the health care system in more than a generation, and Democrats said it marked the culmination of a campaign that Harry Truman began when he sat in the White House 60 years ago.

Debate on the House floor had already begun when Obama strode into a closed-door meeting of the Democratic rank and file across the street from the Capitol to make a final personal appeal to them to pass his top domestic priority.

Later, in an appearance at the White House, he said he had told lawmakers, "to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America."

Participants also said Obama had referred to this week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are "what sacrifice really is," as opposed to "casting a vote that might lose an election for you," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J.

It appeared that a compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion had finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.

As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.

But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.

Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but pulled back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.

One, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., detailed numerous other benefits for women in the bill, including free medical preventive services and better prescription drug coverage under Medicare. "Women need health care reform," she concluded in remarks on the House floor.

A Republican alternative was rejected on a near party line vote of 258-176.

It relied heavily on loosening regulations on private insurers to reduce costs for those who currently have insurance, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. But congressional budget analysts said the plan would make no dent in the ranks of the uninsured, an assessment that highlighted the difference in priorities between the two political parties.

It was a theme of Obama's remarks to Democrats at midmorning.

The president said Democrats have a 70-year history of creating and defending programs like Social Security and Medicare, Andrews said afterward, adding Obama had said the day's vote "is going to define the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties for decades."

Associated Press writers Phil Elliott, Alan Fram and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

Comments

Satirical 4 years, 5 months ago

Didn't the Dems claim the public would be able to see the bill 72 hours before the vote? Another broken promise from the Left.

I wonder why they didn't want the public to view the bill for 72 hours before the vote...

They definitely got the "change" part right.

0

Satirical 4 years, 5 months ago

Finally we have some decent legislation which transfers massive amounts of wealth from the young and healthy (college kids don't need money) to the elderly and those who live unhealthy lifestyles.

No new taxes here....just the government compelling you to purchase something.

0

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

Rogue,

I believe they want to also disallow private insurers from pricing the plans too high.

It seems to me we don't need to both require insurance companies to cover everybody/not price their plans too high and ALSO have a public option.

Why do you think we need both of those?

And, yes, btw, it seems strange that a public option would be more expensive, if included in an exchange with private insurers operating under those restrictions.

Part of the rhetoric in favor of the public option has been to provide an affordable alternative and competition with private companies. It's not affordable if it's more expensive and not much competition either.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

"But you'll defend it anyway, right, "

Well, nota, if you had at least a third-grade-level reading comprehension, you'd see that I haven't been defending this bill at all, even though it would be an improvement to the status quo (back-handed compliment, at best.)

The doesn't mean that I agree with knee-jerks like you.

0

RogueThrill 4 years, 5 months ago

“It's not a perfect option, but it does let those who would otherwise be excluded from home ownership to acquire it.”

And we expect costs to go down with government money pumped into the health insurance market?

======

And this is about as pristine an example of a straw man as you are going to get. There may have been flaw in previous policies encouraging home ownership, but it's pretty disingenuous to imply that being a homeowner vs. being a renter is the same as being insured and not being insured.

I would rather rent than be denied access to basic level care that didn't ruin my life via cost.

0

RogueThrill 4 years, 5 months ago

The public option will not be cheaper, it will be more expensive, according to the CBO. And there is no need for that option for people who would be excluded since other parts of the bill now forbid such exclusions, or even charging more.

=====

You need to think of the public option as a consistent alternative instead of the preferred option. Of course the public option is going to be more expensive given it's current weak form; it's going to be full of nothing but the people who's preexisting conditions prevent them from getting insurance in the current market.

However, if we implement a bill with prohibition on exclusion and no public option the insurance market is able to circumvent the law by pricing plans for those with preexisting conditions outside of their means.

The public option, if nothing else, gives those people a fall back. A baseline. So, if private insurers can't provide for these people the public option will.

Personally, I am not defending this because Pelosi or Reid or Obama want this. I think it's weak as crap and we need UHC. However, I am willing to take a starting point that is unlikely to ever be repealed (i.e. Medicare) and will be continually built upon.

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

RogueThrill (Anonymous) says…

“It's not a perfect option like UHC, but it does let those who would otherwise be excluded from getting health care to acquire it."

You could also say:

“It's not a perfect option, but it does let those who would otherwise be excluded from home ownership to acquire it."

And we expect costs to go down with government money pumped into the health insurance market?

0

Marion Lynn 4 years, 5 months ago

"leedavid (Anonymous) says…

Uh… I hate to break it to you but Healthcare is DOA at the senate.

I agree with you commuter, Dennis Moore needs to get his resume together because he is out of here. By the time election rolls around and we have 12% unemployment….he can make a good ambulance chaser."

Marion writes:

Newsflash!

Dennis Moore started as an ambulance chaser.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"I haven't read through this bill ... "

But you'll defend it anyway, right, boohoozo? Typical. At least this time you admit you don't know what you're talking about.

"It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care."

Most of which has absolutely nothing to do with insurance, and will not be reduced at all (and very possibly increase) with the passage of this legislation.

"Mighty early on a Sunday morning to be whipping yourself into such a frenzy, nota."

Well, let's see - you posted three times before my first post, starting an hour and a half earlier, moron. But hey, that's about standard when Herr Buffoon can't answer a question (which is to say pretty much all the time).


pace (Anonymous) says…

"The Gop tactics to sell us their version by hysterically attacking Obama didn't tell us much about how to fix the problems."

So please explain - without parroting the MSNBC sound bites - how THIS legislation will "fix the problems."


RogueThrill (Anonymous) says…

"It's not a perfect option like UHC, but it does let those who would otherwise be excluded from getting health care to acquire it. It's a cheaper option for those who are excluded for having pre-existing conditions like rape and spousal abuse."

Nice try, no cookie. On second thought, it wasn't even a nice try.

Do you know anything about the bill you're supporting?

The public option will not be cheaper, it will be more expensive, according to the CBO. And there is no need for that option for people who would be excluded since other parts of the bill now forbid such exclusions, or even charging more.

Other than the fact that Obama/Pelosi/Reid want this bill passed, rogue, can you defend it in any other way?


beobachter (Anonymous) says…

"KS, pretty sure it's not my head in sand. Try watching anything besides Faux . Next stop believing any and everything Beck, Rush and Hanenity lies about"

Turn off MSNBC and back away from the television, BeO.

By the way, are you at least going to have the same level of honesty as boohoozo and admit you haven't read the bill you're defending? Or would you care to take a whack at answering the question I asked earlier, i.e. what justification is there for a public option that would cost more than private insurance?

0

BlessedSap 4 years, 5 months ago

Is the mandate similar to the federal law about not crossing the border illegally? It should be very effective.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

Don't bet on it, leedavid. Big Health wants to save their cash cow badly enough that they'll allow some sort of "compromise" to go through if they think it will forestall real reform for another decade or so. This bill is very generous to Big Health, and by the time the Senate gets done with it, it'll be even more generous.

0

leedavid 4 years, 5 months ago

Uh... I hate to break it to you but Healthcare is DOA at the senate.

I agree with you commuter, Dennis Moore needs to get his resume together because he is out of here. By the time election rolls around and we have 12% unemployment....he can make a good ambulance chaser.

0

commuter 4 years, 5 months ago

Not only will I vote against anyone who voted for this bill, I will send money to the people running against them. So far I have sent money to the RNC. For me that is a first, I have have never sent money to the RNC, DNC or any canidates. Tha nlks Obama for making me realize that the only change you have created is me giving money to the RNC.

0

Marion Lynn 4 years, 5 months ago

OK, I've stayed out of this because I realy hadn't researched it due to other time-consuming matters.

Now that I have, it sure looks to me like windfalls for the insurance companies and the US Treasury:

Key Provisions:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/07/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5570605.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

"The House passed H.R. 3962, called the "Affordable Health Care for America Act," in a 220 to 215 vote on Saturday night. Here's a look at some of the provisions in the $1.2 trillion dollar bill:

Creates a public health insurance option and a national exchange for the uninsured and small businesses to purchase health insurance. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would negotiate rates with doctors and hospitals on reimbursement rates.

The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don't offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate.

Insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. There are caps on deductibles and annual out of pocket spending is capped at $5000.

Eliminates the Medicare doughnut hole over ten years.

Allows individuals up to 27-years-old to stay on their parent’s health insurance

Expands Medicaid from 100 percent to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

Provides tax subsidies for individuals between 150 and 400 percent (sliding scale) of the Federal Poverty Level. There are also tax subsidies for small businesses.

As amended, it prohibits federal funds from covering abortions. Women would need to purchase riders to insurance purchased on the exchange if they wanted that coverage.

The bill taxes individuals making more than $500,000 and $1 million for couples. It is a 5.4 percent tax.

Reduces overpayments to doctors who treat Medicare Advantage patients. It is estimated they are paid 14 percent more than doctors who treat Medicare patients."

0

verity 4 years, 5 months ago

Thank you, Dennis Moore, for voting yes on the health care bill. It's not perfect, but it's a good start. Time to join the 21st century.

0

beobachter 4 years, 5 months ago

KS, pretty sure it's not my head in sand. Try watching anything besides Faux . Next stop believing any and everything Beck, Rush and Hanenity lies about,

0

KS 4 years, 5 months ago

Obama wants to nationalize healthcare so they can unionize it next. This is about power, not healthcare. Anybody who believes different has their head in the sand.

0

JHOK32 4 years, 5 months ago

One down and one to go! YES !!!!!!!! It is appearing that the average middle class Americans are finally going to get a fair shake after being ripped off by the rich for so many years !!!!!!

0

leedavid 4 years, 5 months ago

So raising expenses on business in a bad economy is a good thing. People can't get a job, can't eat, getting kicked out of their homes, possessions become reposessions and this is a good thing, because we got government healthcare. Put more people out of work by raising cost of goods and services sold or provided is a good thing. I hope they run it the way government runs everything else we will all be happy then. I would rather have a job with healthcare myself. But that is just me.

0

camper 4 years, 5 months ago

I also think a public insurance option is a good alternative.

Ironically, health care reform is really pro-business in addition to being socially responsible. Not sure why detractors are labeling it as Socialism and spreading fear.

I also think that those who are not covered and covered should be able to pay cash only, but receive a discount if they go this route. Provide a 40% discount and non interest payment schedule.

0

camper 4 years, 5 months ago

Merrill posts:

"I still say all of us should be willing to pay our own way with 3.3% payroll deduction and NOT force employers to pay. This would be best for attracting new industry thus a lot of badly needed employment"

I agree 100%. Employers got into providing health insurance partly to attract employees and partly for philanthropic reasons. Somehow employers got in "in for a penny, in for a pound" and we now seem to expect them (linked with insurance companies) to provide us health care. Most large corporations and small businesses would be thrilled to shed this responsibility because health care puts pressure on the bottom line and unfortunately leads to staff reduction, outsourcing, or otherwise limiting hiring new employees. And worse yet, bankruptcy.

A single payor system or an expansion of medicare would do a lot to take this burden away from business.

0

G_E 4 years, 5 months ago

Wonderful news. I spent about 4 hours watching CSPAN last night, and it was totally worth it. Well, except for the disgustingly anti-choice Stupak amendment - here's to hoping that gets killed in the Senate ASAP.

0

staff04 4 years, 5 months ago

"They talk the price tag of programs and ignore the price tags we are paying as families."

Pace, I don't know if there has been a more apt statement made to sum up Republican policies of the last 3 years of a Democratically controlled Congress.

Great comment!

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 5 months ago

You're welcome Ag and it indeed is another beautiful day outside.

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

"Until I see a published report from the real Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, .."

Here is what snopes.com reports: "Sorry, no matches were found containing Dr. Stephen E. Fraser."

Though the interview was not with Rachel or Keith, I saw a guy just this morning with his name, an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, speaking about the bill.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 5 months ago

Considering such a heavy Dem majority, this 2000 page bill barely passed the house vote, Scott. With all the time spent and now the sheer mystery of the bill, I wouldn't be feeling too overconfident about it----yet.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 5 months ago

Oh I know Pelosi is there to stay. With a far-left district and lots and lots of money she's made off of her strictly non-union enterprises (remember the labor champion side of Pelosi?) I only can hope she loses the gavel at least.

I'm sorry folks, she's just the worst.

0

scott3460 4 years, 5 months ago

"Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma'am Pelosi will now be more hated than ever. Interested to see if her numbers sink even lower. Pathetic. Who really knows what's shoved into this bill.

=======

You might not like her, but her constituents aren't going to vote her out any time soon."

And she accomplished this with the votes of a majority of duly elected members of the House, so what is your complaint? Is it as childish as you are not getting your way?

0

RogueThrill 4 years, 5 months ago

Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma'am Pelosi will now be more hated than ever. Interested to see if her numbers sink even lower. Pathetic. Who really knows what's shoved into this bill.

=======

You might not like her, but her constituents aren't going to vote her out any time soon.

0

RogueThrill 4 years, 5 months ago

beo/boohoozo, perhaps one of you could enlighten the rest of us as to what justification there is for a public option that will cost more in premiums than private insurance? Any other liberal loon is welcome to take a shot at that one, too.

======

It's not a perfect option like UHC, but it does let those who would otherwise be excluded from getting health care to acquire it. It's a cheaper option for those who are excluded for having pre-existing conditions like rape and spousal abuse.

This is a weak public option. But I suppose it is a starting point.

0

Jimo 4 years, 5 months ago

"You are no longer a citizen of the US, you are a subject."

Curious: Are there people wacked-out enough to actually believe this, or is this supposed to be some sort of propaganda that would convince or confuse others?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

Why I Voted NO

by Dennis Kucinich

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross."

To read the rest--

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/08-0

0

pace 4 years, 5 months ago

Access to health care will free people. it will help small businesses to expand and improve their work forces. It will help many to end employment or relationship that were poisonous except for the health care access. It will separate going to our doctor from choosing which job we take. Workers, families, and employers should not have to factor in personal family health issues with economic business decisions.

0

Paul R Getto 4 years, 5 months ago

A good start; it will be interesting to see how it a fares in the Senate. The R's still have two major tasks: Kill health care and hope the economy is still hammering lots of everyday Americans next summer and fall as the election approaches. If they can also kill any attempts at a rational, forward-leaning energy policy, they will have the trifecta. Good luck in the meantime stirring up the gods, guns and gays pot

0

pace 4 years, 5 months ago

The Gop tactics to sell us their version by hysterically attacking Obama didn't tell us much about how to fix the problems. It just told us the GOP think they are evangelists and only need to scream prophesies at people. They talk the price tag of programs and ignore the price tags we are paying as families. Accurate information and less theatrics. The GOP need to return to conservative reasoning, not be the sad wing nut caricatures of themselves. The Democrats should stand up for the families instead of trying to appease the hysteria of the tea party hysterics. The headline should of read, Health care passes despite Republican hysteria and theatrics.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

"I have no real reason to waste time going line-by-line through something like this."

Especially when the letter isn't even about the bill that got passed.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 5 months ago

right_thinker (Tom Shewmon) says…

"Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma'am Pelosi ..."


Wow. Considering that this woman figures in @ 80% of your posts these days, it's no surprise you've developed a sexual fetish for her. About as mad as Marion's fetish for aborted fetuses and Nazis.

Thanks for the laugh...

Another beautiful day outside--time to start enjoying it!

--Ag

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

Mighty early on a Sunday morning to be whipping yourself into such a frenzy, nota.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 5 months ago

monkeyhawk...

The Google link search I provided has further links to all sorts of refutations.

Here's one:

http://mediamattersaction.org/emailchecker/200909010008

I visit DemocraticUnderground.com about as often as I visit FreeRepublic.com (almost never). I followed the link that came up in the search, however, and thought this comment from someone named "gleaner" made a good point:

"Have you tried checking ... the Medical Board in the state where he claims to be licensed to see if he really is a doctor? Anyone can sit down and write a letter claiming to be a doctor. Doesn't mean that they are. That is a good place to start."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6421399

It's very reminiscent of the infamous article on Snopes.com, discussing the whole "Hanoi Jane" incident(s).

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

Emails about this have been circulating for years. The worst part? Real names of real soldiers have been woven in. Jerry Driscoll, Edison Miller, and Mike McGrath have gone to great lengths to refute the false claims. Here's one example:

http://www.military-money-matters.com/nam-pows.html

So, monkeyhawk, when you snark, "Your refutations of what the Dr. stated are quite eloquent and convincing, as usual," it serves no purpose other than to show how you gleefully grab yourself an even bigger shovel, to dig yourself down into an even bigger hole. All you've done is emulate the "mad copy/paste skillz" of someone like merrill, and toss out the first thing you find that's forwarded to your inbox.

Until I see a published report from the real Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, I have no real reason to waste time going line-by-line through something like this. Could this be the man in question?

http://www.drscore.com/Indiana/Anesthesiology/search/Stephen-Fraser_10305786.html

Yeah... we'll wait and see on that.

No credibility, monkeyhawk. Good riddance.

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

And, beo/boohoozo, since you both seem to disagree with the evaluation of the earlier version of the bill, perhaps either of you have read this one before wholeheartedly supporting it? Or perhaps you think the Democrats who voted for it read and analyzed all 2000 pages, before the rushed Saturday night vote?

Oh, forgot - you don't have to know what's in it to support it, it was being sppon-fed to you by the Democrats so it must be okay. What a couple of sheep.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

What's with all you folks all of a sudden wanting "enlightenment?"

I haven't read through this bill, but I'm sure there is much to dislike about it-- most of it is because it was written to appease Big Health and all of the legislators they have bought off.

0

notajayhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

beo/boohoozo, perhaps one of you could enlighten the rest of us as to what justification there is for a public option that will cost more in premiums than private insurance? Any other liberal loon is welcome to take a shot at that one, too.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 5 months ago

Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma'am Pelosi will now be more hated than ever. Interested to see if her numbers sink even lower. Pathetic. Who really knows what's shoved into this bill.

0

beobachter 4 years, 5 months ago

monkeyhawk, since you are so familiar with bill passed and letter. why don't you enlighten us?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

"why don't you enlighten me"

I'm sure I can find more entertaining windmills at which to tilt than that.

0

overthemoon 4 years, 5 months ago

bozo

You know, once an idea gets stuck in the head of an obstructionist, there's just no getting rid of it. If Faux news said it once and no matter how many times it has been proven false, it is true for all time in the strange neocon collective consciousness where facts don't matter and reason has no meaning.

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

boozo, why don't you enlighten me as to which portions stated by the Dr. were omitted in the bill that was passed?

0

remember_username 4 years, 5 months ago

Bartstop - your 5:10 post was terribly cynical. Unfortunately, it was spot on.

Monkeyhawk - Page 22, 58, 59 - so? Page 29, 30, 42, 85 - currently part of any health insurance I've had for the last 20+ years. Then I got as far as "Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)" and realized too things. First, you weren't looking for a response; and second, the guy who wrote this is unfamiliar with reality.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

I'd still like to know what a four-month-old letter about a different bill that hasn't even been passed (and likely won't be) has to do with the bill that just passed in the House.

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

Your refutations of what the Dr. stated are quite eloquent and convincing, as usual.

0

toe 4 years, 5 months ago

You are no longer a citizen of the US, you are a subject.

0

Agnostick 4 years, 5 months ago

That's really convincing, monkeyhawk. Really convincing.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Here+is+a+letter+I+sent+to+Senator+Bayh.+Feel+free+to+copy+it+and+send+it+around+to+all+other+representatives.+%E2%80%94+Stephen+Fraser&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Why don't you go dig around in your junk mail folder, and see what else you can come up with? It's hard to believe that there is anything else more convincing than this chain letter--but you townhallers are as creative as they come!

Agnostick agnostick@excite.com

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 5 months ago

What does this four-month-old letter concerning possible legislation in the Senate have to do with the legislation that just passed the House, monkeyhawk?

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 5 months ago

"I am scared that the only hope for this country is the Senate to vote down healthcare and cap and trade. "

Can you live without health care? Those that need it cannot live without it.

Anyway health care is not on the table.

What I cannot understand is why some love the most expensive medical insurance in the world. The Senate voting this down would put more spending money in our pockets.

Oh well the most expensive medical insurance industry should be very happy. How can they lose with mandatory medical insurance?

Repubs love more expensive medical insurance which is why they were supporting no change. Medical insurance increases in cost every year.... whether necessary or not.

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election..

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Fraser, MD "

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.) Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.) Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan.)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!) Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; & nbsp;guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

cont.

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!) Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NOchoice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.) Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes.. (Americans will pay.)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin. will have access to ALLAmericans' finances and personal records. cont...

0

monkeyhawk 4 years, 5 months ago

"Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser

July 23, 2009

Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued!

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer.

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.' cont...

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 4 years, 5 months ago

TS says... "What's next?"

Well, there are a few crises to deal with. Pick one, or three.

0

overthemoon 4 years, 5 months ago

"43% of Americans support ObamaCare."

Numbers like this are very misleading because they don't reveal WHY people provide the answers they do. It is not an indication of a cohesive block of potential voters. Of those opposed to the current bill, a good number are those that feel that it is weak and would prefer a single payer or much stronger public option. We would prefer not to be indentured to large insurance companies who's prime objective is shareholder profit, not providing health care.

Oh, by the way. It is not a "government takeover". That is another very misleading arguement. If industry would play nice and put the people first, their would be no need for regulation or intervention. But they don't.

0

geekin_topekan 4 years, 5 months ago

"Nearly unanimous in their opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.

United in opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation." ++++ I like the second one more better.

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 5 months ago

And to think, an overwhelming 43% of Americans support ObamaCare. This is but the start of The Tyrannical Trio shoving government control down our throats. On to cap and trade. What's next? 'Twill be interesting to see how this fares at the polls 2010/2012. As Obama said, "We're only getting started".

0

Thing 4 years, 5 months ago

I will vote against anyone that voted for it!

0

labmonkey 4 years, 5 months ago

I am scared that the only hope for this country is the Senate to vote down healthcare and cap and trade.

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 5 months ago

I still say all of us should be willing to pay our own way with 3.3% payroll deduction and NOT force employers to pay. This would be best for attracting new industry thus a lot of badly needed employment.

Employers could still pay if they chose to do so by simply reimbursing employees the 3.3%.

National Health Insurance would provide excellent coverage at the 3.3% payroll deduction rate without forcing employers to pay. AND would reduce cost by $400 billion annually according to the CBO. This battle will rage on have no fear.

Mandating health insurance was a big win for the insurance industry.

This new republican party is simply being themselves as always. Insensitive. BTW their approach of changing nothing will result in a 25% increase = monster increase for 2010 = grab your wallets. The insurance industry and their shareholders are loving this one.

0

David Albertson 4 years, 5 months ago

Two reasons that Republicans oppose health care reform. One, they have been bought out buy the crooked health insurance industry. Two, passage of landmark legislation such as this will be a huge win for the Obama Whitehouse and will almost assure his reelection. It's all political. It has everything to do with power, and nothing to do with principle. Disagree? Why didn't the GOP ban abortion when they had control of the Senate, House and the Whitehouse? It's because that issue is one of the top vote-getters for them. If abortion was no longer an issue, they would never win the Whitehouse again. They are the party of lies and deceit.

0

LiberalDude 4 years, 5 months ago

Woot! This is the change that I voted for. What a historic night!

0

bookemdano 4 years, 5 months ago

Who'da thunk that it would be the House getting a republican to vote for the health care bill--though in retrospect Cao was trying to save his hide in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.

Was pleased to see Dennis Moore was among the Yea votes.

Unfortunately, this was the easier of the two votes. The real heavy lifting is still to come in the Senate and there is a long way yet to go over there. Still, it's an important milestone.

0

EasyTiger 4 years, 5 months ago

Thank God somebody's finally doing something in this country. I've been waiting 10 years for somebody to do something right, and finally one party had the balls to do the Lord's work. It's small step, but Jesus works in subtlety.

We're finally seeing those God-hating, peace-hating, America-hating, baby-hating, caner patient-hating, flu-patient hating, freedom-hating, Constitution-hating, reason-hating, Jesus-hating, "Don't raise my taxes because I'm a greedy piece of sh*t and I hate my country" types get their comeuppance.

God bless our elected officials. May there never be a retarded group of inbreds and half-wits that threaten this great nation again.

0

overthemoon 4 years, 5 months ago

I watched a bit of the 'debate' on Cspan. Its absolutely amazing that the republicans persist in using disproven lies and misinformation as the basis for their opposition. The stagnation of any sort of real discussion and debate is a serious problem for the country. I don't see how this will change if one party continues to avoid any semblance of statesmanlike behavior and promotes a delusional and destructive obstructionism.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.