Tuesday, March 23, 2010

House Approves Health Overhaul, Sending Landmark Bill to Obama

NEW YORK TIMES
By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON — House Democrats approved a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health system on Sunday, voting over unanimous Republican opposition to provide medical coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans after an epic political battle that could define the differences between the parties for years.

With the 219-to-212 vote, the House gave final approval to legislation passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve. Thirty-four Democrats joined Republicans in voting against the bill. The vote sent the measure to President Obama, whose yearlong push for the legislation has been the centerpiece of his agenda and a test of his political power.

On a sun-splashed day outside the Capitol, protesters, urged on by House Republicans, chanted “Kill the bill” and waved yellow flags declaring “Don’t Tread on Me.” They carried signs saying “Doctors, Not Dictators.” Inside, Democrats hailed the votes as a historic advance in social justice, comparable to the establishment of Medicare and Social Security. They said the bill would also put pressure on rising health care costs and rein in federal budget deficits.

After a year of combat and weeks of legislative brinksmanship, House Democrats and the White House clinched their victory only hours before the voting started on Sunday. They agreed to a deal with opponents of abortion rights within their party to reiterate in an executive order that federal money provided by the bill could not be used for abortions, securing for Democrats the final handful of votes they needed to assure passage.

The debate on the legislation set up a bitter midterm campaign season, with Republicans promising an effort to repeal the legislation, challenge its constitutionality or block its provisions in the states.

The health care bill would require most Americans to have health insurance, would add 16 million people to the Medicaid rolls and would subsidize private coverage for low- and middle-income people, at a cost to the government of $938 billion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office said.

The bill would require many employers to offer coverage to employees or pay a penalty. Each state would set up a marketplace, or exchange, where consumers without such coverage could shop for insurance meeting federal standards.

The budget office estimates that the bill would provide coverage to 32 million uninsured people, but still leave 23 million uninsured in 2019. One-third of those remaining uninsured would be illegal immigrants.

The new costs, according to the budget office, would be more than offset by savings in Medicare and by new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health plans and a tax on the investment income of the most affluent Americans. Cost estimates by the budget office, showing that the bill would reduce federal budget deficits by $143 billion in the next 10 years, persuaded some fiscally conservative Democrats to vote for the bill.

Democrats said Americans would embrace the bill when they saw its benefits, including some provisions that take effect later this year. Health insurers, for example, could not deny coverage to children with medical problems or suddenly drop coverage for people who become ill. Insurers must allow children to stay on their parents’ policies until they turn 26. Small businesses could obtain tax credits to help them buy insurance.

The campaign for a health care overhaul began as a way to help the uninsured. But it gained momentum when middle-class families with health insurance flooded Congress with their grievances. They complained of soaring premiums. They said their insurance had been canceled when they got sick.

“It’s not just the uninsured,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “We also have to worry about people with insurance who find, for crazy reasons, that they are somehow going to be denied coverage.”

In the end, groups like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business tried to stop the bill, saying it would increase the cost of doing business. But other groups, including the American Medical Association and AARP, backed it, as did the pharmaceutical industry.

2 comments:

  1. As I watched the president sign his name on the widely unpopular (based on a majority of polls) healthcare bill, a variety of questions began to fill my mind, but one stood out above the rest: what now? This is possibly one of the most social programs since FDR's New Deal. Economic recovery from this bill will be extremely hard to come by, despite what the budget office claims. (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/04/08/by-pulling-his-punches-bernanke-shatters-obamacares-credibility/) Taxes will escalate for those who already asked insurance companies for their free healthcare, even though the "free healthcare" won't come until 2014. As much as I would enjoy babbling on and on about how this bill will hurt people rather than help people, I won't give the classic conservative argument, because it goes much farther than just that. The New York Times has said that the healthcare bill was put in place largely for "income inequality" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24leonhardt.html) also known as redistribution of wealth.

    Redistribution of wealth looks pretty good when our country isn't doing very well, but it obliterates one of the values our country stands for: free will charity. Overtaxing the wealthy and giving to the poor is not charity. Charity is offering out your own hand to help others and your community, not the government forcing your hand to help someone else. This idea not only makes us thrive economically as a society, but it also makes us all-around better people. Redistribution of wealth lowers the work ethic of the people and hurts those who provide America with the means to have opportunites not offered by most countries. When I say opportunity, however, that does not guarantee everybody will be successful, but it gives us all the possibility. Possibility is what drives so many immigrants to come and make a living in this great country. But redistribution of wealth would be a burden on our American system of opportunity.

    The healthcare bill doesn't stop at income inequality; I believe it will also pave the way for the "public option" and eventually attempt to make healthcare a right for all citizens, which is my favorite part of the U.S.S.R. Constitution (Article 42). Some would say this is a good thing, but we must look at our other rights and see what they have in common. If you read these rights closely, you may notice they largely explain what the government can't do to you, or as Obama would call them, "negative" liberties. The rights in the Bill of Rights were not meant to be given to us by the government, they were meant to be PROTECTED by the government. Call me a religious nutcase, but our rights were GIVEN to us by God. A government can't give us rights that explain what they can't do to us. The role of God changes when the government obtains too much power, because now the government has the ability to dictate how wealthy you are, whether you have a "proper education" (Article 45), or whether you have access to healthcare. The Lord decides our fate, not the government. As the Declaration of Independence pointed out, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED by their CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Justin, considering in 44-45 the tax rate was at 94%, '80 it was at 70%, and '86 it was at 50%, you should understand that we're actually MUCH LESS progressive than we used to be. The Bush tax cut for the elite wealth holders has placed the burden of a very large deficit on the average consumer. It has also led to the belief by some that the select few deserve a majority of the wealth. I'm not suggesting to have full out communism, because that would eliminate all possible initiative (unless of course there were to be some super wave of nationalism, which as the divide in Washington would show, is basicly ruled out for now.)

    I like how you used the references to a country that doesn't even exist anymore. I love it how you forget that the Soviet Union was actually a superpower once too, so they may possibly have done SOMETHING right. Now I'm not saying that they had a good system or anything, it's just, we could possibly create a better sense of humanity by taking whatever good ideas the Soviets left us behind? In the case of healthcare, mabye it might make sense to be a right. I mean, wouldn't it seem sensable for us to try to preserve our LIVES? You oppose abortion, but you are against universal healthcare.. That does not seem to add up in my book. An American's number one right is the right to LIFE. Healthcare provides us with a longer life. By saying, "I have my health insurance, to hell with you" seems a little wrong to me. It's almost as if you are denying the number one right.

    Please think about it.

    ReplyDelete