News: State of Wisconsin

House passes health care bill

After months of heated debate, Senate proposal to bring coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans scheduled to hit president’s desk

After more than a year of vicious and heated debate played out in Washington D.C. and across the media, the United States House of Representatives passed a historic and sweeping set of reforms Sunday to overhaul the nation’s current health care system.

The House technically voted on two separate bills: the Senate health care bill that passed in December and the House’s Reconciliation bill, which would make corrections and changes to the Senate bill. The Reconciliation bill also includes a set of student loan reforms that were lumped in with the bill in hopes of getting a better chance at passing.

Now that both have passed, the Reconciliation bill will head to the Senate for approval, while the Senate Bill will go to President Barack Obama’s office to be signed into law.

The Senate bill would, among other things, prohibit health insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, cap out-of-pocket expenses for patients and let dependents stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26-years-old.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will give coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

According to figures released Saturday by the CBO, the total cost of the new insurance coverage provisions would be about $940 billion over 10 years and would reduce federal deficits by $143 billion through various cuts and cost-saving measures over that time.

Obama has made health care reform one of his key priorities, and has pushed for overhauling the system since he gained office. During the days leading up to the vote, he urged members of both parties to pass the reforms to make sure every American is insured.

“Don’t do it for me. Don’t do it for the Democratic Party. Do it for the American people. They’re the ones who are looking for action right now,” Obama said at a House Democratic Caucus Saturday, according to a White House statement. “We have been debating health care for decades. It has now been debated for a year. It is in your hands.”

Both bills needed 216 votes to pass and outcomes were still uncertain up to the last minute. One of the main worries of the Senate bill’s supporters was securing the votes of anti-abortion Democrats, including Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., who initially opposed the bill because he feared federal money would be used to fund abortions or for insurance covering abortions.

Stupak announced his support of the bill before the vote, however, after a last-minute meeting with White House officials and an agreement with Obama that he would issue an executive order stating that no public funds could be used for abortions.

Although both bills passed, debate up to the final votes was characterized by heated partisanship attacks on both sides.

Republican House members denounced the bill as a government takeover that would lead to massive debt and a troubling expansion of executive power that could take away people’s choices of insurance providers.

“Democrats are thwarting the will of the American people and taking them on a headlong rush towards socialism,” Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., said. “Vote ‘no’ on this bill and start over on real reform that Americans want.”

Democrats responded by praising the bill’s goal of providing insurance for millions of Americans and criticized Republicans for standing in the way of historic legislation.

“Why can’t the American people have access to the same types of insurance that the members of Congress have? No more have and have-nots. No more tax-paying Americans that don’t have health insurance,” Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said.

The second of the bills passed included reforms to the student loan system. Currently, private loan lenders can get student loans guaranteed or bought up by the government so banks will not be held accountable if a student defaults.

The reforms in the Reconciliation bill would allow the federal government to spend less money buying these loans and put that money toward government-funded Pell Grants. The CBO estimated the elimination of the bank-based system would save $61 billion over 10 years, and $36 million of the savings would go toward Pell Grants.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

user-pic

I’m glad 32 million uninsured Americans will now have health insurance, but I’m curious about something. Let’s say you’re a homeless person and some punks come along and beat you up. The cops show up and call for an ambulance to take you to the ER. Upon your arrival, they ask you if you have insurance. You say no. Then they call the officers in and tell them about it and the nice officers write up a citation for being uninsured. You have 30 days to pay the fine. Thirty days later, you’re still homeless, still have no money to pay the fine and still have follow-up visits to the doctor. The cops come up to you and haul you off to jail for not paying that fine.

Reality check. Is this what will really happen to someone who can’t afford health insurance? Am I wrong?

user-pic
  1. This is the first time that Congress has ever required people to buy a product as a condition of being alive. That part will certainly get challenged in the Supreme Court.

  2. People our age will have to pay for the inevitable cost overruns of this bill. Whether you think the bill was a good idea or not, the cost will be more than advertised.

user-pic

�Why can�t the American people have access to the same types of insurance that the members of Congress have? No more have and have-nots. No more tax-paying Americans that don�t have health insurance,� Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said.

If Mr. Courtney really believed his own words and the progressive socialist talking points he spouts, he would have committed all federal employees, including Representatives and Senators, to participate in the healthcare legislation they just passed. But the Senators and Representatives have their own choice ‘Cadillac’ healthcare plan! They are the ‘haves’. The rest of the us are forced to participate in the obamanation of flagrant official corruption that just passed the House!

If you don’t care about the corrupt means that were used to get this legislation passed, you do not care about this country. If you support these ‘Chicago Style’ gutter low politics, you are a progressive socialist supporter of Obama.

Greed passed this legislation and Greed will sign it into law. Political Greed. Personal Greed. Partisan Greed. Rights but no Responsibilities Greed. No amount of demogoguery will conceal the flagrant corruption and progressive socialist Greed any longer.

First of all, the passing of these bill will be seen as another historic movement towards the government actually caring about the lower classes of this country. However, the real reason I wanted to comment is to point out the flaws of the many commentaries above. To begin, I sincerely doubt any of you are political analysts, therefore, you might consider toning down some of your predictions, that you have no reason or authority to be making. Second, and more importantly, If you are going to make gross accusations you should provide some evidence of proof. There is a comment about how the government and people are, “[in] support these �Chicago Style� gutter low politics” comment also speaks of massive corruption and several other weighty accusations. This would be important to know…if there was ANY PROOF at all. Instead, you just spout off nonsense and act like it is fact. So instead, keep your opinions to yourself or at least moderate them, considering it seems as though you have no idea what you are talking about.

user-pic

“keep your opinions to yourself or at least moderate them”

You see, there’s this thing…what is it called? Oh yeah! The first amendment! Unless the health care bill limits freedom of speech, I believe those people who commented before you may say whatever they damn well please, regardless of their statements’ accuracy. They are not claiming to be political analysts. Let the people contribute to the debate, instead of letting the PhDs decide what is “correct.”

Notice the way this is reported.

The massive destruction of liberty, the phony numbers attained by double-counting and other accounting gimmicks, the massive bribery and buying of votes and the fact that the American people are dead set against this legislation is completely whitewashed.

This report portrays all this as “bringing health care coverage to millions of Americans” and “doing it for the American people” and never questions or presents the reader with relevant facts. What about the fact that the American people are dead set against this legislation and that almost every independent study has shown that insurance will become MORE expensive, not less?

Instead of critically examining the claims by proponents of this legislation, any viewpoint and facts that deviate from the claims of the administration are presented as mere “partisan attacks.” Then, in typical fashion, a Republican is quoted as a naysayer to be followed by the Democratic rebuttal, which always amounts to: Republicans are just mean obstructionists who don’t want people to have access to health care.

This is news reporting? What about the truth? What about the actual arguments and criticisms of this “historic event?” Why are the majority of Americans against this legislation? What about the facts that contradict what health care proponents are saying? What about the destruction of liberty and the enslavement of doctors that this bill puts into place?

What about the fact that mandating insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions means outlawing insurance. “Insurance” that pays you AFTER something bad happens is not insurance, it’s welfare.

All this is whitewashed. It’s just those caring Democrats who are bringing us the “good life” against those damn Republican obstructionists.

Leave a comment

To comment anonymously or if signed in, leave name and e-mail blank.

Donate