With the support of only one Republican Congressman – America’s first Vietnamese Representative, Joseph Cao – it looks as though the House has passed significant healthcare reform legislation. Here’s a clip from the New York Times:
Handing President Obama a hard-fought victory, the House narrowly approved a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system on Saturday night, advancing legislation that Democrats said could stand as their defining social policy achievement.
After a daylong clash with Republicans over what has been a Democratic goal for decades, lawmakers voted 220 to 215 to approve a plan that would cost $1.1 trillion over 10 years. Democrats said the legislation would provide overdue relief to Americans struggling to buy or hold on to health insurance.
“This is our moment to revolutionize health care in this country,” said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and one of the chief architects of the bill.
Democrats were forced to make major concessions on insurance coverage for abortions to attract the final votes to secure passage, a wrenching compromise for the numerous abortion-rights advocates in their ranks….
Mark my words… The Republicans are going to rue the day that they labeled this thing Obamacare.
And, with that, here’s footage of our own John Dingell introducing the bill on the floor of the House.
So, now it’s up to the Senate to fuck things up.
21 Comments
i’m more afraid of the day we realize this wasn’t real reform a la kucinich.
I think it’s a step in the right direction, though.
And I know I’ve had my difference of opinion with John Dingell in the past, but I was proud seeing him on the floor yesterday, arguing in favor of the legislation. It was cool, I think, for House leadership to make that happen.
The bill, in its entirety, can be found here.
I’m skimming through right now, looking for the section on death panels. (I want to be appointed to one.)
And look here for a list of the Democrats in the House who voted against the bill, and the American people.
And remember who they are the next time you find yourself voting in a Democratic primary.
I find this list especially interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html?hp
I can understand the no votes from Reps whose districts voted for McCain, but I’m puzzled by the no votes by Reps from pro-Obama districts–I’d like to hear how they explain their votes.
You might try looking for the death panels in the language cutting funds for abortions. Surely, someone will be responsible for deciding whether or not a pregnant woman’s life is at risk.
exactly, Hillary. Pretty sure one Democrat who voted against it was thinking of immigrant children and poor women.
Yes, while I’m not surprised that the prohibition of federal funds to health insurance companies which provide coverage for abortions got in there, I’m not happy about it at all. Basically, this means that wealth white people will have no problem getting abortions since they have the means to pay for it straight out of the gate, whereas poor or middle class people will think twice or will not be able to get it at all since now, their insurance companies are prohibited from paying for them. While the religious right will believe that’s a good thing, it’s disingenuous to say (as they essentially have) that poor people shouldn’t get what rich people can. This was true pre Roe v. Wade and still is true in countries where the practice is illegal. Rich people have access, poor people don’t.
Basically, these people believe that poor people don’t have the intelligence to make their own choices.
I agree, Pete. There’s a distinction, though. Poor people enjoy getting abortions. Rich people don’t.
And it’s possible that this provision won’t make its way into the final legislation. I know ti’s probably unlikely, but, if the Senate bill doesn’t have a similar clause, it may be dropped in the negotiation process. If people are against it, they should let their elected representatives know.
“it’s disingenuous to say (as they essentially have) that poor people shouldn’t get what rich people can”
Since someone is going to scream that I’m a communist, I would like to remind them that we aren’t talking about Ferrari’s or 20 bedroom houses. We are talking about a medical procedure that is not very expensive at all in the grand scheme of things. No one here would say that only people who can afford them should have cardiac bypass surgeries. And no, a cardiac bypass surgery is not always a lifesaver, nor is it always medically necessary, but still, very few people would say that only rich people should have them.
My guess is that there is a good number of Republicans that were for the bill but voted against it knowing that it would pass. What’s good for election politics isn’t always what the Reps think.
. . . oh, Kucinich will be right. But still: I’m very happy for this development (not the abortion part). Big smiling kind of happy. How imperfect, though–we have a long legacy of a weird kind of misplaced arrogance/pugnaciousness that says we don’t want the government paying for our health care. Huh?! But reading old articles in the NYRB from the 1960s, that’s a stubborn theme. And I guess I believe a lot of Americans still believe that, though it doesn’t make sense.
Instead of dreamed-of reform, a whole new system of health and wellness, single-payer, etc., if we keep at it to make sure we get a kind of health insurance reform with some unacceptable pieces, we’ll be lucky, but that’s still really good.
Onward.
Here’s Kucinich’s reasoning for voting No.
You also might find this article defending Kucinich by Lee Stranahan of interest.
So what. The bill will go on the Senate shelf right next to the cap and trade bill. Abortion has nothing to do with Health care. It kills one person and destroys the other.
It kills one person and destroys the other.
I heard Dr. Laura once, who said this. Never wanted to hear her again because of that willful hate tossed out to whole swaths of people she doesn’t even know over the AM radio as if she’s God’s #1 sin shouter. Bitter judgment intended to harm people’s spirits without even really pretending to be valid or insightful, just meant for any sensitive buttons, hoping to push them. Bullyish and freedom squashing for someone to presume he/she can really know another’s experience, or pretend to presume for the sake of argument and shaming.
Given your interest, you might want to check out the http://www.lastingliberty.com/ piece on the healthcare debate : Bigger Than Healthcare
Gee Oliva,
You sound pretty judgmental. Maybe you would gain insight and empathy if you sat in on some post-abortion counseling sessions.
Maybe where we’re really at as a nation, a world, is here with a chance to learn from the past and not waste time, heart, energy, mental power, etc., repeating certain obvious mistakes. Times of change are always unnerving and spur a reaction from people who desperately want to reject what they perceive as too rapid or threatening change. After slavery came Reconstruction, brutal and lasting a very long time. So much hate took root, took lives, brutalized and terrorized. That’s just one especially obvious time.
Can the American people get courageous, learn from history, and just rise above (sorry, it’s elitest sounding, but it captures the sense of it well) the “movement” of small-minded haters who’ve lately been getting way too much attention in relation to the value they offer or produce? Michigan’s own Congresswoman Miller (Macomb Cty.) stood duncelike behind Bachmann, beside the frighting Virginia Foxx of NC, at the Tea Party event in Washington on Thursday. This state really can do so much better. This country can. I hate the thought that bipartisan ideals, and other tricks when one party isn’t playing but keeps taking the field and messing it up, are enough to keep us from just saying no to the bigotry and self-evident crap that has been mounting since Obama became president.
(rise . . . above . . . I think I can, I think I can)
I thought any kind of reform Obama wanted was to cover all Americans. I read yesterday that this will cover 96%. So that leaves over 12 million people without health insurance, down from 47 million. Now what? The objective was not accomplished.