LibriumArcana.Games

The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215.

With the passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, proponents of health care reform took an important step forward, but turning the bill into law remains uncertain.

It's unclear when the Senate will vote on a version of the health care legislation debated in that chamber. If the Senate passes its bill, the House and Senate bills would have to be reconciled into one document and voted on again.

The House Democrats needed 218 votes to ensure passage of the bill. On Saturday, it appeared the vote would come down to the wire, as the intentions of some conservative Democrats remained unknown.

In the final tally, 219 Democrats voted for the legislation, and 39 voted against it.

Rep. Joe Cao (R-Louisiana) was the only Republican who voted in favor of the bill.

Read the House bill (PDF)

Democrats began counting down with eight seconds left in the voting period and erupted in a loud cheer when the hotly debated legislation was passed. Republicans in the chamber stood across the floor, some with their arms folded.

"Oh what a night," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a news conference after the House adjourned its session for the night. She thanked President Obama and her colleagues who fought to get the bill passed.

The Republican National Committee released a statement after the vote.

"Today with help from their liberal House allies, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi finally got what they have been creating behind closed doors these past months -- a government-run health careexperiment that will increase families' health care costs, increase the deficit, increase taxes on small businesses and the middle class, and cut Medicare," the statement said.

Earlier, the House passed an amendment to pending health care legislation that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create.

The vote passed 240-194.

Share your thoughts on the health care debate

A second amendment considered by the House, introduced by Minority Leader John Boehner, which would have substituted several sections of the health care bill dealing with insurance, did not pass. Legislators voted against the amendment 258-176.

The first amendment, introduced by anti-abortion Democrats, bans federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create. Its consideration was considered a big win for them and for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power -- especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts -- to help force other Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.

Republicans strongly supported the measure.

The GOP accounted for 174 of the votes in favor of the amendment, with 1 Republican voting "present." On the Democrats' side, 64 voted for the measure, and 194 voted against.

Earlier Saturday, President Obama said members of the House of Representatives face the chance of a lifetime as they consider the legislation.

After a meeting with the House Democratic leadership, the president said he told lawmakers that "opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation."

"This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us," Obama told reporters in the White House rose garden. "Even when it's hard, especially when it's hard, this is our moment to deliver."

General Havoc wrote:Does someone want to explain to me why this abortion change was added into a bill that the Republicans did not wind up voting for anyway?

The Cleric wrote:What exactly has changed regarding pre-existing conditions and discrimination? Aren't there risk variables associated with race/age/gender that factor into estimated cost, just like things like smoking or family history of diabetes/heart condition?

frigidmagi wrote:I would have thrown Lieberman out of the caucus a long time ago.

President Obama said today that Congress needs to change abortion-related language in the health care bill passed by the House of Representatives this weekend.

"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions."

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions, the president said, "There are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed Saturday and added to the legislation, "and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

After a contentious debate, the House passed a health care bill Saturday that includes a provision banning abortion from being covered in the public insurance option contained in the bill. The bill also prevents women receiving insurance subsidies from purchasing private plans that cover abortion. Liberals in the House Democratic caucus were opposed to these provisions but voted for the overall bill.

In an exclusive television interview in the Map Room of the White House, Obama told ABC News' Jake Tapper that he was confident that the final legislation will ensure that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed."

"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices," he said.

The president was also asked about concerns that the Medicare cuts he proposes to help pay for health care reform would be undone by Congress subsequently, as is often the case with deficit and cost cutting measures.

"Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?" Tapper asked.

"Yes," the president said. "I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks."

Obama told ABC News there is still more work to be done before a final health care bill reaches his desk for a signature.

"I think everybody understands that there's going to be work to be done on the Senate side," he said. "It's not going to match up perfectly with the House side."

On Tuesday, Obama will attend a memorial service at Fort Hood for the 13 killed in last week's shooting. Today he reiterated that the nation is "heartbroken" by what happened there Thursday, but said there are many questions to be answered.

The president was asked about an ABC News report that intelligence officials learned months ago that Maj. Malik Nidal Hasan had reached out via the Internet to al Qaeda affiliates, and had passed it into military intelligence, though no official actions seem to have been taken. But he wouldn't say directly whether he was concerned that the U.S. government failed to communicate with itself as was seen in the investigation into 9/11.

"We are going to complete this investigation and we're going to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again," he said.

Obama said it was important to let the investigation play itself out so the details as to how and why the rampage happened are known before he comments further.

Asked what philosophically separates an act of violence from an act of terrorism, the president said, "I think the questions that we're asking now and we don't have yet complete answers to is, is this an individual who's acting in this way or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations? Those are all questions that I think we have to ask ourselves. Until we have these answers buttoned down, I'd rather not comment on it.

Obama has yet to publicly announce his decision on a new way forward in Afghanistan and is deliberating whether to send more U.S. troops there, as the commander on the ground, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has requested. He will meet again Wednesday with his top national security advisors to discuss the Afghanistan strategy.

Asked what variables would play into his decision-making that would cause him to not just take McChystal's recommendation and implement it, Obama said today that he's talking to a wide variety of people, both commanders and civilians, to get the best possible picture of the situation.

"I've been asking not only Gen. McChrystal, but all of our commanders who are familiar with the situation, as well as our civilian folks on the ground, a lot of questions that, until they're answered, may -- may create a situation in which we resource something based on faulty premises," the president said.

Obama described his deliberative process as making "sure that we have tested all the assumptions that we're making before we send young men and women into harm's way, that if we are sending additional troops, that the prospects of a functioning Afghan government are enhanced, that the prospects of al Qaeda being able to attack the U.S. homeland are reduced."

The president in the last week has visited Dover Air Force Base to participate in the "dignified transfer" of troops killed in Afghansitan, and he has visited with wounded troops at Walter Reed Army Hospital. He said such visits "absolutely" have an impact on his decision-making process because it "reminds me that -- these aren't abstractions. The decisions that we make in this White House have consequences for our long-term security and they also have consequences for the individuals who are being deployed."

He added that "as commander in chief, my job is not to just think in terms of one individual or short-term costs, but also what's required to prevent another 9/11, what's required to make sure that we're not seeing another USS Cole. And, you know, ultimately, when I make a decision, it's going to be based on the over arching view of U.S. national security. But I think I would be making poorer decisions if I didn't have to look into the eyes of a family member who had lost a loved one and tell them how grateful we are as a nation that -- that -- that moment, I think, ensures that I'm making the best possible decisions going forward."

Obama said the main message he took from last week's election results – with Republicans winning gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia – was that Americans are "nervous, and they're worried and they're anxious."

"I don't think there's any denying the fact that people are worried out there," he said.

Obama said Democrat Bill Owens' victory in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, the one bright spot for the president's party last Tuesday, "sent an important signal."

"Bill Owens, the Democrat in a traditionally Republican district, a district that had been Republican for 100 years, did not shy away from saying he supported health insurance reform, that he supported the Recovery Act and the progress that we have made there, and ended up winning," Obama said.

White House Looks for Ways to Stimulate Job Growth

Obama is also under increasing pressure to do more for the economy. The nation's unemployment rate jumped to 10.2 percent in October, the highest rate since 1983. The Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report, released last Friday, was worse than expected, showing employers shed 190,000 jobs last month.

Revive the goddamn CCC!

B4UTRUST wrote:Question: Is the wording still in this bill that legally requires people to have insurance or face fines and/or jail?

SirNitram wrote:Fines, unless under a certain income.

The Minx wrote:Now the Senate version needs to get through the Senate, and Lieberman is threatening a filibuster to support the Republicans if there is a public option in there, despite his being an "independent" caucusing with the Democrats.

SirNitram wrote:First off, the Stupak Amendment: I was incorrect. It is not based on whether the individual receives a cent of subsidies. It's if the company receives a single penny of the healthcare subsidies. Again, no exceptions.

OP article wrote:The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.

SirNitram wrote: The Secretary will be setting a rate for minimum 'medical loss ratio', no less than 85%, which must be met.

America's Health Insurance Corporation Enrichment Act of 2009, Page 27 wrote: ``(b) IMPLEMENTATION.--The Secretary shall estab-
lish a uniform definition of medical loss ratio and method-
ology for determining how to calculate it based on the av-
erage medical loss ratio in a health insurance issuer's book
of business for the small and large group market. Such
methodology shall be designed to take into account the
special circumstances of smaller plans, different types of
plans, and newer plans. In determining the medical loss
ratio, the Secretary shall exclude State taxes and licensing
or regulatory fees. Such methodology shall be designed
and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate
participation by health insurance issuers, competition in
the health insurance market, and value for consumers so
that their premiums are used for services.

America's Health Insurance Corporation Enrichment Act of 2009, Page 27-28 wrote: ``(c) SUNSET.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall not
apply to health insurance coverage on and after the first
date that health insurance coverage is offered through the
Health Insurance Exchange.''.

America's Health Insurance Corporation Enrichment Act of 2009, Page 539 wrote: ``(C) the Secretary shall terminate the plan
contract if the plan fails to have such a medical
loss ratio for 5 consecutive contract years.''.

SirNitram wrote: Any money kept in excess of 15% after actually treating people will be removed from the company and distributed to those holding premiums. In short, Administrative Costs and Profit cannot exceed 15%.

reviews demanding reasons for premium increases,

and removal of a huge chunk of the administration costs simply by banning large amounts of recission and pre-existing conditions.

SirNitram wrote:Why should I not use the existing definition, the one used by the congresscritters who wrote that, and so forth?

SirNitram wrote:For someone so obsessed with definitions being exactly as in the bill, perhaps you should know that The Secretary is not any form of insurance company, or part of the free market, or anything which could be inferred to that.

What else we got... Oh yes. Transparency and no more monopolies. Those are quite effective. A study on how much people are having to spend.

No premium raises without reporting to the Secretary and Comissioner.

No more annual or lifetime limits on types of coverage.

Specific upper limit on cost-sharing..

As for Public Option? The Designated Socialist has gone on the record for filibustering unless there's a robust public option for all.

frigidmagi wrote:That said I have to agree with the bloody fucking Socialist. We need a Public Option.

Especially if we're forcing people to take insurance. Which frankly I do not care for at all and if I was in Congress I would fight to death against.

Destructionator XV wrote:

SirNitram wrote:For someone so obsessed with definitions being exactly as in the bill, perhaps you should know that The Secretary is not any form of insurance company, or part of the free market, or anything which could be inferred to that.

Health insurance companies have NEVER influenced government officials before, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?

The text states that the secretary must cater to their interests, at least to some extent. "Such methodology shall be designed and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers,"

This explicitly says the interests of the death panelists will be taken into account. Will you see a wholesale redefinition of the term? No, but I guarantee you that it will be stretched to the breaking point.

The MD's they hire for their death panels - you know, the guys who find ways to say "technically this procedure isn't required" so they can stamp DENIED on your claim - how much do you want to bet that they'll be considered part of that 85%? Or what about the phone monkeys who give you the runaround when you call with a question? They're providing "value for consumers" so surely that shouldn't count against it, right?

What else we got... Oh yes. Transparency and no more monopolies. Those are quite effective. A study on how much people are having to spend.

The tools of the invisible hand.

No premium raises without reporting to the Secretary and Comissioner.

Covered in my big post - this provision is in there to prevent price gouging, nothing more.

Yes, that's better than it is now, but it is still terribly weak. To borrow the words of Congressman Kucinich, is this the best we can do?

No more annual or lifetime limits on types of coverage.

That's good for folks, but counter to cost control. If they have to pay out more, they are going to want to - and argue that they need to - take in more. Thus, premiums go up.

Specific upper limit on cost-sharing..

$5000 for an individual, or $10,000 for a family per year, subject to increases with each passing year [page 107]. That's in addition to the premiums!

The country currently spends some $8k per capita on healthcare, including everything. This allows them to jack up prices right off the bat, and continue to raise them each year. Cost control my ass.

Besides, that's a lot of fucking money, especially to regular people. It might keep upper middle class folks out of health related bankruptcies, but the rest of us? We're still screwed.

As for Public Option? The Designated Socialist has gone on the record for filibustering unless there's a robust public option for all.

Indeed, but given Obama and Reid's record so far, do you think they are going to make it liberal enough to appease Sanders, or conservative enough to get Snowe and Lieberman to vote for cloture?

Bernie Sanders is our best hope left to salvage this situation in the short term - whether his threat succeeds, or his filibuster kills the bill - but he's fighting an uphill battle.