Health Care Bill Passes House 220-215

[tomspug]

A health care bill with a public option passed the house 220-215 Saturday evening. Michelle Bachmann flipped out. Is this the end of the Republic as we know it? Or has some good been done here?

OK, but isn't it almost certain that it will not make it through the Senate with a public option? Or does that not matter?

 

[Falvlun]

OK, but isn't it almost certain that it will not make it through the Senate with a public option? Or does that not matter?

Can anyone explain to me why the same legislation doesn't get voted on in the house and the senate? It just seems like the reinvention of the wheel over and over again.

 

[darkendless]

From what I can gather, it's to allow everyone to be able to afford health insurance?

Then that can't be anything but good

I'm absolutely appalled at some of the comments at the bottom of the page though - those people should be ashamed of themselves.

I saw on the news people saying "why should i help others pay for health care." I couldn't imagine living over there. Public health care is one thing i don't mind my taxes paying for. I couldn't imagine being refused from hospital because i didn't have private health cover.

My lord American's are thick sometimes.

 

[Minus Habens]

So, how many dems voted against it? Is this the same bill that puts a surtax on all things "medical" like tampons, band-aids, etc.?

 

[methylatedghosts]

I saw on the news people saying "why should i help others pay for health care." I couldn't imagine living over there. Public health care is one thing i don't mind my taxes paying for. I couldn't imagine being refused from hospital because i didn't have private health cover.

My lord American's are thick sometimes.

Inorite?

I don't get it 0.o

 

[Reverend Rick]

So, how many dems voted against it?

The ones that want to win their next election. I'm thinking there was 38 that voted against if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The ones that want to win their next election. I'm thinking there was 38 that voted against if my memory serves me correctly.

You mean they are only the ones who could be Bought.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The ones that want to win their next election. I'm thinking there was 38 that voted against if my memory serves me correctly.

You mean they are only the ones who could be Bought.

:yes: Precisely.

 

[gnomon]

So, how many dems voted against it? Is this the same bill that puts a surtax on all things "medical" like tampons, band-aids, etc.?

I don't think anyone's read the bill.

I just read one snippet which I like. That insurers cannot use domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.

Here's a summary. Full text here.

I happen to be on vacation this week so I might read this. Knock yourselves out people.

My first impression is that the Senate will not work well with this bill and it will be back to committee in both houses.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As I said on another thread, if the Democrats can hold their seats - and especially if they GAIN seats - after the next election, they will have the mandate from the people that they need to push the bill through the Senate.

It seems to me like the Republicans want to stall until the next Senate race and use the healthcare bill as a rallying point for voter turnout, and the Dems can do the same thing. A poor choice for the GOP though, because when they lose they will lose even bigger than when Obama won the Presidency.

 

[Minus Habens]

I don't think anyone's read the bill.

I just read one snippet which I like. That insurers cannot use domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.

Here's a summary. Full text here.

I happen to be on vacation this week so I might read this. Knock yourselves out people.

My first impression is that the Senate will not work well with this bill and it will be back to committee in both houses.

Thanks. I believe it was the Bauchus bill that had the taxes on health products, not this one (at least it didn't say anything about it in the summary). Hard to keep up with all the different bill versions going around.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

As I said on another thread, if the Democrats can hold their seats - and especially if they GAIN seats - after the next election, they will have the mandate from the people that they need to push the bill through the Senate.

It seems to me like the Republicans want to stall until the next Senate race and use the healthcare bill as a rallying point for voter turnout, and the Dems can do the same thing. A poor choice for the GOP though, because when they lose they will lose even bigger than when Obama won the Presidency.

Interesting (and a little risky/scary) take. My first thought after reading the article the other day was "Well, there's at least 38 Democratic incumbents who absolutely NEED to be removed from office, for selling out their constituents for money."
But maybe you're right, maybe their constituents will trade up. :cover: )(


Then again, I always remember my mom's words: "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voting public."

 

[gnomon]

Thanks. I believe it was the Bauchus bill that had the taxes on health products, not this one (at least it didn't say anything about it in the summary). Hard to keep up with all the different bill versions going around.

Reading through it right now I have a hard time understanding provisions regarding costs. I think someone has to a have a breadth of knowledge on health care insurance to compare the provisions to existing standards.

Right now I'm looking for some of the rumored coverages I heard about such as coverage for faith healing and spiritual based, or non-evidenced based, health programs. Other than providing for evidence based educational programs, not excluding faith based services, for prevention of teen pregnancy and taking into account the "cultural, spiritual and multigenerational aspects of behavioral health problem prevention and recovery" in regards to training models for substance abuse prevention in guidance with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations I find nothing of those rumored coverages. I think it was a Senate version floating around that considered providing some coverage for faith healing.

The only thing related to faith, spiritual or religion in general I can find is an exemption to the 2.5% tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage is a religious conscience exemption.

I hate reading these bills but this one isn't nearly as bad as trying to figure out the Patriot Act when it passed. Hopefully there will be some clear indicators of the meaning of the bill over this week. However, I still think it's all moot. I don't think the public option will pass the Senate. I do recommend people save the pdf file because even though it comes in at 1990 pages it's easy to reference.

 

[linwood]

Perhaps I will get a contract for building another prison to house all the folks who don't cough up their health insurance money to the government.

Nice to find myself in agreement with you Rick.

This bill seems to me to be nothing more than legalizing strong arm robbery benefiting insurance companies while making those who cannot afford it criminals.

I hope it fails miserably in the senate.

We`re being screwed again people, how many times do we have to be screwed like this before we see it?

:help:

 

[gnomon]

Nice to find myself in agreement with you Rick.

This bill seems to me to be nothing more than legalizing strong arm robbery benefiting insurance companies while making those who cannot afford it criminals.

I hope it fails miserably in the senate.

We`re being screwed again people, how many times do we have to be screwed like this before we see it?

:help:

I wonder about the constitutionality of certain aspects. Like the tax on the uninsured. The public option. Government requirement of health care in general.

How can the government get away with imposing a tax on citizen A because they are uninsured but citizen B gets a religious exemption? Which is nothing more than a hypothetical question at this point.

There are certain aspects this bill addresses that needs to be addressed. Removing the notion of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, health care coverage for children with congenital defects with a specific exemption of using health care coverage for cosmetic surgery for self esteem purposes and improving health care for Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations. Of course all of this can be done without a public option and probably without 95% of the rest of the bill.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nice to find myself in agreement with you Rick.

This bill seems to me to be nothing more than legalizing strong arm robbery benefiting insurance companies while making those who cannot afford it criminals.

I hope it fails miserably in the senate.

We`re being screwed again people, how many times do we have to be screwed like this before we see it?

:help:

A key issue is this: health insurance is not health care.

It is the primary medium of access to health care, especially for people who cannot afford health care without it (which is most of us).

Unfortunately, this has made health insurance companies so powerful that they control prices and access to every aspect of health care... for example, a health insurance company can negotiate with a hospital whereas a normal person cannot.

I've run into this personally as I've had surgery last year with the insurance company getting a $2k discount and I didn't pay hardly anything because I have supplemental insurance... whereas my brother in law, having a low paying contractor job - not having health insurance - had to frount $500 just for a test on his knee, and another $5k before the surgery. No breaks. At the same time, it took nine months for my insurance to pay.

 

[linwood]

I wonder about the constitutionality of certain aspects. Like the tax on the uninsured. The public option. Government requirement of health care in general.

I have problems with a lot of it.

* The penalties for being unable to afford their "affordable" coverage.

All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.
Affordable Health Care for America Act | EdLabor Journal | Committee on Education and Labor

Historically our government really has no clue as to what is "affordable" for the average American.
This bill will actually increase the hardship for many who already cannot afford it as they will have to pay for it anyway or face penalty.

*The idea that within 5 years there will still be any employer who offers insurance if this bill is passed into law.

For individuals who aren’t currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses,....

Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.

http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml

I can only say that my GM would gladly drop our employee insurance coverage if he only had to pay 8% of our payroll as penalty.
It`s a deal to him.

I`ll have a look at the actual bill but these items just from the abstract are enough for me to pray for the quick demise of this idiocy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*The idea that within 5 years there will still be any employer who offers insurance if this bill is passed into law.

I can only say that my GM would gladly drop our employee insurance coverage if he only had to pay 8% of our payroll as penalty.
It`s a deal to him.

Just think of what a deal it is for Wal-Mart.

 

[Minus Habens]

Thanks. I believe it was the Bauchus bill that had the taxes on health products, not this one (at least it didn't say anything about it in the summary). Hard to keep up with all the different bill versions going around.

Nope, it's in this bill, but I was mistaken. It is only for medical devices and they make an exemption for devices sold to the public...

SEC. 552. EXCISE TAX ON MEDICAL DEVICES.
9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 31 of the Internal Rev10
enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
11 following new subchapter:
12 ‘‘Subchapter D—Medical Devices
‘‘Sec. 4061. Medical devices.
13 ‘‘SEC. 4061. MEDICAL DEVICES.
14 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby imposed on the
15 first taxable sale of any medical device a tax equal to 2.5
16 percent of the price for which so sold.
17 ‘‘(b) FIRST TAXABLE SALE.—For purposes of this
18 section—
19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘first taxable
20 sale’ means the first sale, for a purpose other than
21 for resale, after production, manufacture, or impor22
tation.
‘‘(2) EXCEPTION FOR SALES AT RETAIL ESTAB2
LISHMENTS.—Such term shall not include the sale
of any medical device if—
‘‘(A) such sale is made at a retail estab5
lishment on terms which are available to the
general public, and
‘‘(B) such medical device is of a type (and
purchased in a quantity) which is purchased by
the general public.
(3) EXCEPTION FOR EXPORTS, ETC.—Rules
similar to the rules of sections 4221 (other than
paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of subsection (a)
thereof) and 4222 shall apply for purposes of this
section. To the extent provided by the Secretary,
section 4222 may be extended to, and made applica16
ble with respect to, the exemption provided by para17
graph (2).
‘‘(4) SALES TO PATIENTS NOT TREATED AS RE19
SALES.—If a medical device is sold for use in con20
nection with providing any health care service to an
individual, such sale shall not be treated as being for
the purpose of resale (even if such device is sold to
such individual).

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Most of the responses to the article are truly disturbing.



Why are the news sites dominated by republicans, and the forum sites dominated by leftists? Are repubicans afraid to speak in an environment where they have to listen to responses?

I am so happy that this bill passed. It makes me sad and angry to see some of the comments under that article. Some people are ridiculous. "It is the end of America as we know it!" I say good! It was just a corrupt, greedy, bloated, corporation run poo pit anyway. We are finally taking step into the future.(Of course it seems to me that the future for us was the then for a lot of other countries. So really we are way behind).