« Stupak's Group to Vote for Health Care Bill | Main | Rallying for Immigration Reform »

March 21, 2010

House Passes Health Care Bill

Congress just passed the Senate's health care bill 219 to 212.

The bill will require most Americans to have health insurance, it would subsidize private coverage for low- and middle-income people, and add 16 million people to Medicaid, according to The New York Times. It will cost the government $938 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Earlier today, Rep. Bart Stupak announced his support for the bill, and President Obama will sign an executive order on abortion language.

Comments

Ms. Bailey chooses to represent in her facts in a one-sided way. While mentioning a "price tag" of $938 Billion, you neglect to mention that new revenue, efficiencies, and cuts will shave $148 Billion off the deficit.

And again I ask, what has this to do with evangelicalism?

Matt, part of that 14 billion will come from severe medicare cuts.

Regarding House passage of the Health Care Reform bill, David Frum, former speechwriter for Pres. GW Bush, analyzes the defeat:

"Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s. It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. ... A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves. At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision ... we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994. ... This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother? ...

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

"Matt, part of that 14 billion will come from severe medicare cuts"

Those are new efficiencies and cuts to the incredibly wasteful, inefficient, and unfunded "Medicare Part D" passed by GWB and the republican controlled congress in 2003-- a bill loaded with giveaways to pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

And whether you like the cuts or not, the fact remains that Ms. Bailey only reported the projected price tag seemingly to induce a kind of sticker shock without adding any context to demonstrate that the objective of this bill is to provide better healthcare and reduce the deficit (a value claimed by some republicans in spite of their voting record).

I've yet to see a democrat in Washington who has even shown that he/she passed economics, much less knows how to lower the deficit. Also, if you're so much in favor of helping those who cannot afford health insurance, then why are you agreeing with Medicare cuts, hmmmm?

Let me clarify something about my last sentence in the previous post: have you actually seen where they are ONLY cutting Medicare Part D or is this just something you heard from a liberal news station or thought about yourself?

The cuts to Medicare are in spending, not cuts in benefits, which is why AARP actually supports the legislation. Incidentally, the Republican's newest "star," Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking minority member of the House Budget Committee, who's a smart (but IMHO misguided) guy, essentially proposes elminating Medicare and replacing it with vouchers. Here's a CNN Factchecker debunking the Republican talking points on this.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/01/cnn-fact-check-medicare-cuts-again/?fbid=40p8a8VBWCs

Here's what the CBO itself says about the accuracy of its deficit-reduction numbers. Keep scrolling down and it links to questions raised by Ryan and CBO's response.

"Others [analysts] assert that CBO is underestimating the ultimate savings from changes in the Medicare program (which could make the legislation reduce deficits by more than we have estimated). Certainly, the budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems is very uncertain. However, CBO staff, in consultation with outside experts, has devoted a great deal of care and effort to this analysis, and the agency strives to develop estimates that reflect the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes. As a result, we believe that CBO’s estimates of the net savings that would result from the legislation have a roughly equal chance of turning out to be too high or too low."

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=524

And of course tort reform was not in the bill either. Why?
Dean's Maxim: "...the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers..."

Yep, there it is, spoken in a moment of truth by a progressive liberal. It's all about trial lawyers' pocket books. (As if we didn't know already.)

Oh, did I not mention: the Dean of "Dean's Maxim" is none other than Dr. Howard Dean, one-time Democratic Party chairman and one-time early front runner for the 2004 presidential nomination, who in moment of honesty, gave us the real reason tort reform did not make it into Obama's health care reform.

I've been reading and editing articles on this legislation for more than a year and this post takes the cake for the worst and most misleading boilerplate summary nut graf on HCR I've yet seen. Yeesh.

I'm never angry, CL (gosh, you gotta get a handle on author's tone of voice! You know,reading legal briefs all the time will stunt your literary perceptions. Yeah, uh huh, it's been proven.) And unlike some who thought the world would come to an end if Obama Care passed, I'm hopeful that some good will come out of it. And maybe, just maybe it will. We shall see, won't we.
- but I am always amused by politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths. And I'm always surprised by politicians, in a moment of weakness, telling the truth. (like Howard Dean) And so when it happens, I feel like I just ought to - you know - post it, 'cus it's soooo rare. Hey, can I get a Dean scream from ya, CL? No? I didn't think so. You just don't seem the type.

"you gotta get a handle on author's tone of voice! You know,reading legal briefs all the time will stunt your literary perceptions. Yeah, uh huh, it's been proven."

-- You gotta get a handle on your own author's tone of voice! You know, talking to sixth graders all the time will limit your literary skills. Yeah, uh huh, it's been proven.

No, trashing the lawyers doesn't make you sound angry at all!

??????????????????????


More than $940 Billions in 10 Years!!! Outrageous, unconceivable, unnaceptable that is going to take 10 years!

LORD have Mercy!

Instead they should allocate all those funds and spend (read waste) it in less time than 10 years by declaring War and invade some other Country with Oil, like for example.. er..uh.. duh. How about Mexico?

Just trying to inject some humor no pun intended.


??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Anyone who says they "know" what is in this health care plan should let Washington know. At this point, nothing is concrete and the plan continues to change even as I type. The Democrats have just given the President carte blanche to do what he wishes with our health care. He's the one pulling the strings and he'll decide what "We The People" pay for. This is only the tip of the iceberg and we'll rue the day he was voted into office. God help our children!

"No, trashing the lawyers doesn't make you sound angry at all!"
Seems like I just posted something in which Prez. O. said something about trial lawyers. What was it? Oh yeah - Here it is: "Anyone who denies there's a crisis with medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer." Prez. BOH. Yessir. There it is. Ouch! Now, that has to sting a little. The Prez dissing the trial lawyers. Now I know he's not talking about Obama Care, but you can sure tell he knows wuzzup with trial lawyers.
But hey, CL, honestly, all my experiences with lawyers have been good ones.
[I can tell you are working on "attitude". Good! But your delivery...well, needs a little...refining."]

"-- You gotta get a handle on your own author's tone of voice! You know, talking to sixth graders all the time will limit your literary skills. Yeah, uh huh, it's been proven."
Poor 6th graders. Now they are getting blamed for adult allitaracy...I mean illiteracy. For shame!


Lori --

You claim, "The Democrats have just given the President carte blanche to do do what he wishes with our health care."
It's one thing to oppose the legislation on knowledgeable grounds, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this is a statement that is staggering in its absolute falsehood and lack of knowledge about your own system of government. You really need to do some homework.

I'm just waiting for everything to go wrong and the democrats start blaming Bush again.

I meant to say "...and the democrats to start blaming Bush again." Anyway, I know that's what will happen. They never want to take responsibility for their own mistakes and I dare those who will likely respond to this statement to give me one example to the contrary.

Just in case you've missed it:

"20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms" is found on http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/capitalhill.htm

Political analyst Charles Krauthammer stated yesterday Mar. 23, that the O. administration intentionally underreported the amount of tax payers money needed to fund O. Care. By next year, he said, a national sales tax will be proposed to make up the amount of $'s needed.
*In an unrelated story [;-p] "The latest Fox News poll finds that 79 percent of voters think it’s possible the economy could collapse, including large majorities of Democrats (72 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and independents (80 percent)." (Huh! This can't be good. But it would probably be the end of O. Care. See, there's an upside to a collasped economy.)

The cost is estimated to be around $940 billion for the next decade - about the price of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars so far - the bill is paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.