Obama outlines health care plan for all

End in sight, health care battle tilts Obama's way
David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 2 hrs 3 mins ago

WASHINGTON – One by one, House Democratic fence-sitters began choosing sides Friday, and the long, turbulent struggle over landmark health care legislation tilted unmistakably in President Barack Obama's direction.

In full campaign mode, his voice rising, the president all but claimed victory, declaring to a cheering audience in Virginia, "We are going to fix health care in America."

With the showdown vote set for Sunday in the House, Obama decided to make one final, personal appeal to rank-and-file Democrats, arranging a Saturday visit to the Capitol. Republicans, unanimous in opposition to the bill, complained anew about its cost and reach.

Under a complex — and controversial — procedure the Democrats have devised, a single vote probably will be held to send one bill to Obama for his signature and to ship a second, fix-it measure to the Senate for final passage in the next several days.

Democratic leaders and Obama focused last-minute lobbying efforts on two groups of Democrats, 37 who voted against an earlier bill in the House and 40 who voted for it only after first making sure it would include strict abortion limits that now have been modified.

Democratic leaders worked late Friday attempting to resolve the dispute over abortion. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who succeeded last November in inserting strict anti-abortion language into the House bill, hopes to do so again. That prospect angered lawmakers who support abortion rights.

"We're not going to vote for a bill that restricts a woman's right to choose beyond current law," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., as she left an evening meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Abortion opponents are divided over whether restrictions on taxpayer funding currently in the bill go far enough.

Reps. John Boccieri of Ohio, Scott Murphy of New York and Allen Boyd and Suzanne Kosmas of Florida became the latest Democrats to announce support for the bill after voting against an earlier version that passed, bringing the number of switches in favor of the bill to seven.

On the other side of the ledger, Rep. Michael Arcuri of New York and Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts became the first Democratic former supporters to announce their intention to oppose the bill. Lynch said he did so despite a telephoned appeal from Vicki Kennedy, whose late husband, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, championed health care for decades.

Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana, the only Republican to support the earlier measure, has also announced his opposition.

The historic legislation, affecting virtually every American and more than a year in the making, would extend coverage to an estimated 32 million Americans who lack it, forbid insurers to deny coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade.

Congressional analysts estimate the cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over a decade.

For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and they would face penalties if they refused. Billions of dollars would be set aside for subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year afford the cost. And the legislation also provides for an expansion of Medicaid that would give government-paid health care to millions of the poor.

Republicans resorted to unusually personal criticism in their struggle against the bill, calling Kosmas a "space cadet" after she announced her position and labeling Pennsylvania Rep. Jason Altmire a "drama queen" for waiting to announce his opposition.

They also suggested the administration had adjusted water allotments to an agricultural region of California to secure the support of two lawmakers but offered no evidence of any link between the two events. Democrats disputed the charge.

In addition, they sought to tarnish Democratic claims of deficit savings, circulating a Congressional Budget Office estimate that deficits would rise by $59 billion once the costs of raising doctor fees under Medicare were added in. The House has already approved the increase in fees, and the bill is awaiting action in the Senate.

The political ramifications remained to be fought out in November.

Arcuri's announcement of opposition reaped a threat from his former allies at the Service Employees International Union, which vowed to try to unseat him in this fall's Democratic primary in favor of "someone who shares our progressive values."

Boccieri's decision to support the bill drew a tart response from the House Republican campaign committee, which issued a warning — "Ohio Dem Uses Press Conference to Announce End of Stint in Congress" — that predicted the first-term lawmaker's political demise.

One day after Democrats released 153 pages of revisions to their bill, they were back at it, responding to fresh concerns from some of the rank and file about disparities in payment levels to Medicare providers in different areas of the country.

"I'm a 'no' unless they fix it," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. "We spent months working this out. If we don't get it in this bill, we will never get it." Pelosi, D-Calif., said changes were in the works.

Republicans said, as they have from the outset, that Democrats were angling for a government takeover of health care. They also said the cost of the bill would be covered by $900 billion in higher taxes and cuts in future Medicare payments.

The Republicans circulated a letter from Caterpillar Vice President Gregory S. Foley to House leaders, warning that passage of the legislation would raise the company's health care costs by "more than 320 percent (over $100 million) in the first year alone and put at risk the coverage our current employees and retirees receive."

The insurance industry said the latest Democratic legislation would decimate a private alternative to traditional Medicare that counts 10 million subscribers. It will "end Medicare Advantage as we know it," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for American Health Insurance Plans." He said Democrats were cutting $200 billion over a decade in projected federal subsidies, and he predicted premiums for seniors would rise as a result.

The government subsidizes private plans at a higher rate than traditional Medicare, and the cuts are aimed at reducing the difference.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100320/...RpbnNpZ2h0aGU-

Favorable CBO score on healthcare cost: not the final word
The Monitor's Editorial Board – Fri Mar 19, 2:55 pm ET

The cost of healthcare “and of reforming it“ is a huge concern to the public and many lawmakers. To hear from the Congressional Budget Office that the latest version of the Democratic healthcare plan will reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the first 10 years, and $1.2 trillion over the next 10, well, that counts for a lot.

The CBO, after all, is independent. It’s highly respected.

But it can only judge what™s laid before it, and in a matter as complex and political as this, that necessarily limits its real forecasting ability.

The office can’t factor in, for instance, political behavior. Right now, the legislation assumes Congress will go ahead and cut Medicare reimbursements to doctors by 21 percent the way it’s supposed to. But lawmakers keep putting off this cost-saving measure, and everyone knows it’s not going to happen.

The CBO probably knows that, too, but it can’t account for a political probability. It has to work with what’s before it.

Here’s another political calculation that must worry the CBO. Will a Congress of the future decide it’s too politically dangerous to tax “Cadillac” insurance plans when the time comes? The tax would raise revenue to help pay for the 32 million Americans expected to be covered under the revised plan.

A lot of union households have these expensive insurance plans, and they don’t like the tax idea. Democrats already caved to union demands by putting off a vote on imposing the tax until 2018. Will lawmakers capitulate again eight years from now? They do just that with such unpopular taxes as the alternative minimum tax, making adjustments year by year without really fixing the problem.

Yes, the CBO can only score what’s before it, including creative accounting.

The healthcare plan starts raising revenue this year, but it won’t begin paying for most benefits until 2014. So the revenue side gets a four-year head start.

True to its reputation, the CBO did not pretend something was there when it wasn’t. Health economists believe there are significant cost savings in moving toward a different way of judging what’s medically necessary for patient care and how to bill that care. The healthcare plan includes these experiments, but they remain just that – pilot programs. Until they become proven and permanent, they shouldn’t be counted on for savings, and the CBO doesn’t count on them.

Remember, also, that this legislation is as complicated as the healthcare system itself, involving doctors, insurers, hospitals, employers, patients, and on and on. Scoring it is not as easy or sure as scoring a discreet change, such as asking how much the government saves by taking back the administration of student loans from banks and doing that job itself (CBO answer: $61 billion over 10 years).

It’s no wonder, then, that the CBO calls its score on healthcare preliminary. That’s how the country should think of it.

Expanding healthcare access without making sure real cost controls can be put in place isn’t the healthiest way to run government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100319...ZvcmFibGVjYm8-

Quote:

---

You know that the government is never the right way to go on handling anything so why think that they can do a better job than what we have now???? Just watch your taxes go up to the point you can't keep up everyday after the next 3 years go by.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, look at the Post Office. You cannot spend what you haven't yet saved.

AND just think, your new benefits won't be available until 2014.

Yet you get to pay starting this year.

Would you buy a car with those terms???

I wouldn't...

---

Quote:

---

The historic legislation.....

---

This POTUS is out to make "history".....not necessarily good decisions, just "historic" ones......:(

States take aim to block healthcare plan
Lisa Lambert And Karen Pierog – Sun Mar 21, 7:42 am ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100321/...tes_healthcare

WASHINGTON/CHICAGO (Reuters) – As the Congress once again rallies to pass healthcare reform legislation, momentum is growing in many states to pass laws to block the changes -- a move that could lead to a legal battle over states' sovereignty.

Bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"There's going to be a big free-for-all lawsuit about this," said Michael Bird, legislative counsel for the NCSL.

The House of Representatives is to due vote on Sunday on a sweeping healthcare overhaul that would require all Americans to have health insurance, but would give subsidies to help low- and middle-income workers. It would also ban insurance practices like refusing coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions.

Opposition efforts at the state level "in general ... seek to make or keep health insurance optional, and allow people to purchase any type of coverage they may choose," the NCSL said.

Democratic House leaders on Friday voiced growing confidence of winning a close vote. If the bill passes the House, it would then only have to pass the Senate by a simple majority under the planned procedure on the legislation.

Mirroring the partisan politics that have dogged the federal legislation, state measures to block healthcare reform are more likely to arise and succeed in states where Republicans control at least one legislative chamber and the governor's office.

So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. No anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.

Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill on Wednesday allowing the state's attorney general to file a lawsuit opposing federal healthcare legislation requiring individuals to buy medical insurance.

Otter sees federal legislation as overreaching and bound to add to medical expenses of state governments, spokesman Jon Hanian said .

"He's concerned we can't afford it," Hanian said, adding that Otter, a Republican, is disappointed in how the Democrat-led U.S. Congress is handling the legislation.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday dismissed as political positioning the complaints by states that the healthcare overhaul may endanger their independence or be too costly.

In the latest version of the bill, all states would receive extra funding to cover Medicaid costs that are expected to rise under the reform, including 100 percent federal coverage for new enrollees under the plan through 2016. Medicaid is the healthcare program for the poor jointly administered by the states and federal government.

Still, states are concerned that the burden of providing healthcare will fall to them without enough federal support and that the reforms infringe on their powers under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, says the proposal will double the number of Medicaid recipients in his state and cost an additional $24.3 billion over the next decade.

TENTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENT

Many states cite the 10th Amendment, which says "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states," as proof that the U.S. government cannot set their healthcare laws.

Gibbs did not accept that complaint. "What we're about to pass and sign into law will meet Constitutional muster," he said.

Robert Natelson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana School of Law, said it would be easier for states to argue for standing to file a lawsuit that claims the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers.

"The legal question is, Does this health care bill exceed the federal government's powers or it is invalid for other reasons?" he said.

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a think-tank on the relationships of the states and federal government, pointed to previous state movements to nullify federal laws in areas such as medical marijuana and Real ID, a federal standard for driving licenses. In the case of marijuana, Boldin said 14 states allow its use for medical purposes despite a prohibition in federal law that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A similar situation may arise with healthcare reform, where there could be mass noncompliance with the law without any real consequences, Boldin said.

(Additional reporting by Jim Christie in San Francisco and Joan Gralla in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler)

States take aim to block healthcare plan
1,861 Comments

Quote:

---

A correction is needed about the U.S. Constitution. It gives certain powers to the federal and state governments and neither can take or give any of those powers from the other. Those powers not given by the Constitution is reserved to the people NOT the state and federal governments.

ALL governmental powers are given to the federal and state governments by the people.

The PEOPLE are the governed and the government.

---

Quote:

---

Anybody that wants government to be in control of how they run their lives our idiots!

---

Quote:

---

The Republican party is just trying to stop the country from become a Socialist government. In fact, when they take over in the next election, (as I'm sure they will) there are rumors that they are going to craft a bill that will gradually phase out other socialist programs like social security and medicare beginning in the year 2020. There is agreement among the Rep leaders that people should be in charge of their own retirement and not have others subsidize their senior years with taxes. IF you agree that we should get rid of all these socialist programs then vote republican this November.

---

JMHO - vote out ALL incumbants ... regardless of "Party"

Quote:

---

Here again we see just how diabolical and devisive the government all the powers that be are.

Their aim is NOT for a "HEALTHY AMERICA".

This is just a harbinger of things to come.

There are people in power who are drunk on the idea of uniting the entire planet underneath one umbrella spiritually, economically and otherwise.

People are now seen as commodities and NOT human beings.

The government is going to control every fascet of our lives.

It's sad when people try to play GOD....

---

Quote:

---

Demand an end to the slave trade agreements and stop this move toward Communism and utter erosion of our Constitutional rights by taking the entire month of April off. Demand that we bring our troups home, close the borders and elect new leeders who will defend the constitution

---

Quote:

---

The nips are in the wire. Its time for all real Americans to stand up against these communists.

---

Quote:

---

You are correct. Time to stand up to the traitorous Republican lies. Time to give the people of the USA what even the people of Mexico will have come January 1st, 2011 - universal health coverage!!!

The Republican scoundrels have been trying to hold back the American people's will for too long, with their eagerness to lie for their puppet masters. Being lap dogs of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, they only know how to growl and bark to protect their master - forgetting completely who they are suppose to represent. Willing to turn their Rove inspired spin machine into an organ of industrial control of the state apparachik, they must be faced and destroyed whereever and whenever their elitist "one world rule" (aka Faux News) ideas are found. To the gates of hell them must be driven!!!!

---

Quote:

---

Gulnara, if you like Mexico's new, untried health care system then move there. NO ONE at any time has said they are against healthcare for everyone. What they HAVE said is the dem bill is NOT the way to go to do it. A majority of the people in the country, as cited in practically every poll since December, have stated the bill is not the way to go.

So, WHICH majority are you alluding to?? If the bill is so good, why isn't congress covered by it? Why not the prez? Why not unions? If it isn't good enough for them, then WHY IN HELL do you think it should be acceptable to the rest of us??

If the bill is so good then why is the prez and dem leaders in congress having to twist arms, make sleazy deals, shut out ANY dissent to get enough votes to pass it? OB wanted an up or down vote, why is he using reconciliation--a method formerly reserved for budget matters--to pass it? Why has the house been considering "deem and pass" so they wouldn't have to sign their names to it? Do you possibly think that even the dems KNOW the bill is a disaster in the making?? ANY legislation asking the American people to accept the kinds and scope of changes this bill is calling for demands a MUCH greater consensus than the current 40-45% for vs 55-60% AGAINST it, no matter WHAT the subject of the legislation may be.

That the prez and dems in congress are bulling on ahead with this just shows there probably is a LOT of money for them in it somewhere--at 2700 pages, who knows??

Pelosi said to pass it and THEN find out what's in it...THAT statement alone should send every dem screaming NO, but, sadly for us, that won't happen, house dems are too afraid of her.

If you don't think that statement is egotistical then you probably would be O.K. with buying a car with a cover over it from a disreputable dealer without even looking at it.

The process this bill has taken alone raises serious doubts about its probable results and if you can't see that then you are totally blinded by the dem spin, believe everything they tell you and have put your trust in the hands of the lyingest bunch of people in the world -- politicians.

---

Quote:

---

I am black and I am sick and tired of the media playing the RACE card when it comes to opposition to this bill. This is a democratic process and last time I checked, the MAJORITY are opposed to Obama's health care plan - black, white and hispanic. This is not an issue of race, this is an issue of culture - a majority opposition to big government versus our civil liberties. We fought with blood, sweat and tears during the civil rights era to reach emancipation only now to succumb to a welfare state of debt slavery and tax poverty. Obama has failed on his promise - it's the economy stupid! Contrary to media coverage, there are plenty of black members of the tea party revolution, oh, and, if you want to be technical, Obama is not black, he is mulato.

---

Obama, Democrats show command of health care votes
David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 1 hr 29 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Triumph in their grasp, President Barack Obama and House Democrats demonstrated command of the votes needed to pass landmark health care legislation Sunday night, a climactic chapter in a century-long quest for near universal coverage.

The House argued its way through a thicket of Republican objections toward a late-evening vote on the bill to extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade.

"Today is the day that is going to rank with the day we passed the civil rights bill in 1964," said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, a member of Congress since 1955. "Today we're doing something that ranks with what we did with Social Security or Medicare. This is a day of which we can all be proud if we vote for that legislation."

Republicans said it was nothing of the sort, warning of a government takeover of the health care system, financed by a trillion dollars in higher taxes and Medicare cuts combined.

"There is dirty deal after dirty deal after dirty deal in the bill this House will vote on," said Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan. "It is a disgrace."

The measure cleared a critical early test vote, 224-206, a few hours after Obama and Democratic leaders struck a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose votes had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and a handful of fellow abortion opponents said they were satisfied and announced their support for the bill. A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church's objections.

A shouting band of protesters outside the Capitol dramatized their opposition, and one man stood up in the House visitor's gallery yelling, "Kill the bill" before he was ushered out — evidence of the passions the tumultuous yearlong debate over health care has stirred.

Passage of a central health care bill already cleared by the Senate would send it to Obama for his signature. That still would leave one more step, a companion package of changes would go to the Senate.

For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill's demise could cripple his still-young presidency.

Far beyond the political ramifications — a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind — were the sweeping changes the bill held in store for millions of individuals, the insurance companies that would come under tougher control and the health care providers, many of whom would face higher taxes.

For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.

The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.

The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.

Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.

A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.

Passage of a central health care bill already cleared by the Senate would send it to Obama for his signature as early as Monday. That still would leave one more step, a companion package of changes still needing Senate approval.

After more than a year of political combat — certain to persist into the fall election campaign for control of Congress — Democrats piled superlative upon superlative across several hours of House debate.

Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York read a message President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress in 1939 urging lawmakers to address the needs of those without health care, and said Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Richard Nixon had also sought to broaden insurance coverage.

Republicans attacked the bill without let-up, warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system.

"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.

"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."

Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.

The 44th president's quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.

But the White House, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.

To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.

In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.

The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.

The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health...9iYW1hLGRlbW9j

Obama, Democrats show command of health care votes
[i]68,701 Comments[i]

Quote:

---

I want to know how much tax dollars have been spent on the Health Care Bill to-date? This would include all Congress and support staff salaries, executive branch salaries, meeting times booked, breakfast, lunch dinner, soda water food item purchased as all meetings. All monies given by lobbyist to congress and executive branch. Car services, messenger, photo copy, power and heating, government building cost. Dry cleaning, hair cuts. shoe shines, makeup. Anything that is expense back to the tax payer. i am for health care re-from, but I feel all of Washington has been paid more in salary and support cost equal to the first year of health care coverage for all of America.

---

Quote:

---

Why don't our Congressman and Senators give us the same Health Care Package that they have? or Why don't our Congressman and Senators accept the same Health Care Program that they are giving us?

Few would deny that a health care crisis looms large in the U.S. In a country with millions of uninsured and underinsured citizens, health care has become more a privilege than a right. Indeed, the United States remains the only industrialized country in the world that doesn’t guarantee health care to all its citizens.

But this isn’t the case for members of the U.S. Congress. Representatives and Senators alike receive some of the best health care benefits in the country, much of it paid for with taxpayer dollars. Yet these same members seem unable - or unwilling - to extend similar protections to the rest of America.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program -- As soon as members of Congress are sworn in, they may participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The program offers an assortment of health plans from which to choose, including fee-for-service, point-of-service, and health maintenance organizations (HMOs). In addition, Congress members can also insure their spouses and their dependents.

Not only does Congress get to choose from a wide range of plans, but there’s no waiting period. Unlike many Americans who must struggle against precondition clauses or are even denied coverage because of those preconditions, Senators and Representatives are covered no matter what - effective immediately.

And here’s the best part. The government pays up to 75 percent of the premium. That government, of course, is funded by taxpayers, the same taxpayers who often cannot afford health care themselves.

---

Quote:

---

It's convenient to paint the insurance companies as the bad guys but their profits are usually under 5%. Profits are needed in order to have many players in the industry which in turn will create competition to lower the costs. Free market works. Meanwhile, the government is 14 trillions in the hole with A LOT more in unfunded liabilities.

---

Quote:

---

I think this man said it the best and will let his comments speak for themselves.

The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not.

-- Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans
if they can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people
under the pretense of taking care of them.

-- Thomas Jefferson


My reading of history convinces me
that most bad government
results from too much government.

-- Thomas Jefferson


To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes
the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors
is sinful and tyrannical.

-- Thomas Jefferson

---

Live blog of the House vote on health care reform
6 mins ago

10:31 PM ET: The voting has begun! House members have 15 minutes to vote. Cue Jeopardy music.

10:25 PM ET: Pelosi speaks on behalf of the bill, thanks President Obama, fellow Democrats, the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

10:14 PM ET: Boehner, after giving a fiery speech, yields the floor. Speaker Pelosi is now up, and will be the final speaker before the roll call vote will begin.

10:06 PM ET: Republican Minority Leader John Boehner now speaking, his speech built around the refrain "hell no!" The vote will probably start in the next 15 to 30 minutes.

9:47 PM ET: Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor speaking now. Republican Minority Leader John Boehner and Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be up to speak shortly. After they're done, the first vote will finally begin.

9:28 PM ET: If the Democrats do succeed tonight, get ready for a flurry of media profiles trumpeting the power of Nancy Pelosi. As this story from this morning's New York Times shows, Pelosi drove this process as much President Obama did.

9:12 PM ET: More debate, still no new news. First vote on the original Senate bill should occur shortly. Remember, even if the second vote on the fixes to the Senate bill fails, or the Senate fails later this week to pass those same fixes, once the House has passed the Senate bill President Obama can sign it into law.

8:40 PM ET: Jo in comments asks: "When does this grandstanding end [and] the vote happen?" The first vote, on the original Senate bill (I was wrong about this earlier), should start in the next hour. The second vote will happen sometime around 11 PM ET. Then, remember, President Obama will speak from the East Room.

8:32 PM ET: A Democratic aide reiterated to The Washington Post's Greg Sargent what Bart Stupak said to reporters earlier: “We’re well past 216.”

8:17 PM ET: A reminder: if you have any questions about what's happening, leave a comment or tweet at me at @agolis.

8:13 PM ET: Debate continues, no news. Just a lot of rhetoric and talking points.

8:02 PM ET: While the House debates, I highly recommend you read Calvin Woodward's historical look at how significant an accomplishment this would be if Democrats can pull it off.

7:45 PM ET: Planned Parenthood and NARAL join NOW in criticizing President Obama's deal with pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak.

7:35 PM ET: For folks asking about the policy details of the bill, check out CBS's great rundown here. (via Mark Knoller)

7:30 PM ET: David Shuster on MSNBC makes a good point: that Diane DeGette, co-chair of the House pro-choice caucus, just spoke on the House floor without mentioning abortion strongly indicates that pro-choice Democrats are accepting President Obama's deal with pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak.

7:20 PM ET: Nate Silver, the master of predictions, rounds up the latest vote counts from major media organizations and predicts that the bill will pass with 220 votes, 4 more than it needs.

7:05 PM ET: A few people in comments have asked why the bill makes buying insurance mandatory for every American. The thinking is that if the government makes it illegal to deny someone insurance because of a pre-existing condition, people will wait until they are sick to buy insurance. That would cause the costs of insurance companies to skyrocket. So, this bill would (over time) ban insurance companies from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition, mandate that everyone buy coverage, and provide subsidies to help people afford to do it.

6:56 PM ET: The White House has released two pictures of President Obama working the phones today. See them here and here.

6:48 PM ET: For anyone just joining us: the House has just officially started debate on health care reform. In light of the deal announced earlier today between President Obama and pro-life Democrats on abortion, it is now widely expected that Democrats will be able to pass the bill. The first vote that will happen in a few hours will be on the bill passed by the Senate in December. The second vote, which may take place close to or even after midnight eastern time, will be on the fixes the House wants to make to that bill. Democrats need 216 votes to pass each.

6:32 PM ET: The House just passed the rules for tonight's debate, 224 to 206. Now on to debate on the legislation itself.

6:30 PM ET: Caroline Sharp has released a statement criticizing President Obama's deal with pro-life Democrats. The group argues that Obama's agreement to sign an executive order reemphasizing that federal funds in the health care bill cannot be used to fund abortions sends the message that "it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more."

6:12 PM ET: The House is now voting on the rules they will follow during tonight's debate. When they finish, they will start to debate on the first of two pieces of legislation they will vote on: the "fixes" to the original Senate bill and then the original Senate bill itself.

6:00 PM ET: If you have any questions about what's happening, leave a comment or tweet at me at @agolis. I'll try to answer a few as I go.

5:54 PM ET: The Hill reports that House Minority Leader John Boehner is telling his fellow Republicans to "behave like grown-ups" if the healthcare reform bill passed tonight. (via TPM's Countdown to Reform Wire)

5:33 PM ET: Worth noting: the House is voting on two things tonight, the original Senate bill and a set of "fixes" to that bill that it wants. If both pass, the Senate will take up the "fixes" this week so that both houses have passed the same legislation. However, even if the Senate fails to pass the "fixes", President Obama can sign the original Senate bill into law. House Democrats do not prefer this, because the original Senate bill includes controversial deals that the "fixes" bill would remove like the "Cornhusker Kickback." But if the House succeeds tonight, there will definitely be a health care reform bill signed into law. So it's a big deal.

5:19 PM ET: Asked about Boehner's claim that a vote for the House bill is a vote for "taxpayer-funded abortions," Bart Stupak just told MSNBC's David Shuster "I totally disagree. [...] I'm afraid Leader Boehner is mistaken." He also noted that he believes Democrats in the Senate have 52 votes for reform, just one more than the 51 needed for passage within the reconciliation process (our explanation of the reconciliation process is here).

5:10 PM ET: The White House says President Obama will speak from the East Room tonight after the House completes its votes. At this rate, though, it might technically be "tomorrow" when Obama speaks. The final vote may happen late late late tonight.

5:06 PM ET: Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, who worried some Democrats when she "went missing" yesterday, has returned to Washington and will be voting today. It is unclear if she will end up voting yes or no on the final bill. (via TPM's Countdown to Reform Wire)

4:50 PM ET: House Minority Leader John Boehner, responding to the news that the President would sign an executive order on abortion, just released this statement: Make no mistake, a ‘yes’ vote on the Democrats’ health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions." You can read the statement here.

4:20 PM ET: Asked by a reporter if support from his group of Democrats meant that the House leadership now had the 216 votes necessary to pass the bill, Stupak responded: "We are well past 216, yes."

4:15 PM ET: Congressman Bart Stupak just announced that he and a half a dozen other pro-life Democrats who had threatened to withhold their support will vote for health care reform. They will do so because of a promise from President Obama that he will sign an executive order reiterating that no federal funding from the bill can be used to fund abortions. You can read the text of the executive order here. (LATE UPDATE: WonkRoom has video highlights of Stupak's press conference you can watch here).

3:30 PM ET: The House of Representatives is now debating and on its way to two final major votes on health care reform. Democrats appear confident and have been telling the media all weekend that when the time comes, they will have the 216 votes necessary to both endorse the original Senate bill and pass a set of fixes to it. We are still waiting for a final announcement from pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak (our post on who he is here) who say they may withhold support from the bill unless they get more assurances that it will not provide funding for abortions.

Debate and initial votes on parliamentary proceedures will dominate the afternoon, with the first vote on the fixes the House wants to the Senate bill to come sometime in early evening (7 to 8 PM ET). The second vote, on the original Senate bill, will follow a few hours later.

CORRECTION: I was wrong on this, they will be voting on the original Senate bill first and then the fixes the House wants to make to it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_...VibG9naG91cw--

comments

Quote:

---

KILL THE BILL

---

Quote:

---

This President and his agenda have failed us. He is clearly out of touch with the people he thinks he is saving from themselves. Rather than focusing on a piece of legislation very few of us want, Barack Obama should be focusing on creating jobs. He can do that in a few very simple ways, not the least of which is to get Government OUT of our way rather than right square in our faces at every turn on the road to economic recovery

He could be giving businesses reason to believe there are tax breaks and pro-US incentives out there to start manufacturing again. He could, along with Congress, extend tax cuts to small business and middle class wage earners. He could pull back regulations that are impeding business expansion rather than deepening them. He could let go of this EPA takeover of the global warming crisis that isn’t, even if only for 12 or 24 months, so that local economies aren’t forced to commit economic suicide in the name of stopping climate change. There is obviously a vendetta against those with money, that this administration constantly wants to continually tax. What they don't get is, they are the ones that spur the economy, they are the ones hiring. When is the last time some broke poor person was hiring?

---

Quote:

---

AGREE KILL THE BILL

---

Quote:

---

It's hard to believe we will get to watch the destruction of America on T V.

VOTE THE IDIOTS OUT !

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis J 5 hours ago

Ah, shaddup racist tea baggers. The bill is passed,find another racist topic to shout and moan about. Republithug whackadoodles, you make the KKK look like pacifists.

---

Quote:

---

Over a year ago we were promised HOPE and CHANGE. Young voters voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. They voted for him because he was new, he was hip, he was hopeful, he promised hope and change. He may have been all of those things. But his administration is also fiscally irresponsible and is sticking young people with the long-term bill.

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. This additional half-trillion dollars a year in interest is more than our combined expenditures on education, energy, homeland security, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This isn't even factoring in the cap-and-trade nightmare, that urgent legislation to catapult the nation back into Third World status based on hysteria generated by fraudulent science and corrupt politicians. An auto company backed by Gore received a $529 million loan from the government (taxpayers) to produce hybrid sports cars for the wealthy.
Nor does this include the calculations of the additional debt that would result from Obamacare.

Obama has done nothing on the rising costs of college education. He has done nothing to create jobs. He has done nothing to reform entitlement programs. He has done nothing to put Social Security on a more sustainable path. Young voters may come to realize that their college education may be of little value under this current administration. Unemployment rate currently at 10% and forecasted to rise.

What he has done is charge the max on young voter’s credit card. That bill will come due long after Obama is gone.

---

God help us all, they passed the darn thing.

Latest ObamaCare House vote developments
Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 21, 2010 at 6:12 pm
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...-developments/

I’m back in action at Twitter after having to step away for a few hours. The biggest news, of course, is that Stupak – and along with him several other pro-life Dems – have caved based on the WH’s agreement to write an executive order essentially upholding the Hyde Amendment. There are some grumblings from multiple GOP sources on Twitter that the EO is meaningless and can’t be used to override a bill passed by Congress. I’m sure we’ll find out more about that in the days to come as the debate over reconciliation moves to the Senate.

And speaking of, some GOP Senators are speaking out, saying that Democrats are delaying a meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian for a reason: http://republican.senate.gov/public/...d-7c439defd83b

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON DC – Senate Democrats have balked at a bi-partisan meeting with the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss a rule violation that could doom the entire House reconciliation proposal.

DON STEWART, McCONNELL SPOKESMAN: “Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first. Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the Parliamentarian, we’ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they’re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House.”

---

I’m hearing that the actual vote probably won’t happen until sometime after 10 8:30 PM tonight (Eastern time) and that Obama will make a speech after the vote, even if it’s really late.

And tomorrow: The President signs the bill into law?

Lots of talk/debate still going on at the #HCR hashtag. http://twitter.com/home#search?q=HCR

Make sure to check it often. I’ll be around on and off for the next several hours posting there. http://twitter.com/sistertoldjah