Healthcare to pass Senate

spike

New Member
Showdown on healthcare: 3 big issues
As final votes on healthcare loom in Congress, abortion, taxes and the public option could still derail efforts.
Similar stories:

With Senate health care win likely, Dems now must woo public
With Senate health care win likely, Dems now must woo public

WASHINGTON — Democrats are calling the Senate's health-care bill a first big step toward insuring more Americans and controlling costs, while Republicans counter that it's the first step toward bigger government and higher taxes.

The two parties are locked in a fierce battle to sway public opinion, and whoever wins it will win the health-care struggle, which now looks likely to stretch into 2010.

The next legislative step is expected at about 7 a.m. Tuesday, when the Senate plans to take a second vote on cutting off a Republican-led debate on the Democrats' $871 billion plan. The first effort passed early Monday, 60 to 40, on a straight party-line vote.

Final outcome of health debate could hinge on public opinion
Final outcome of health debate could hinge on public opinion

Democrats are calling the Senate's health care bill a first big step toward insuring more Americans and controlling costs, while Republicans counter that it's the first step toward bigger government and higher taxes.

The two parties are locked in a fierce battle to sway public opinion, and whoever wins it will win the health-care struggle, which now looks likely to stretch into 2010.

The next legislative step is expected at about 7 a.m. Tuesday, when the Senate plans to take a second vote on cutting off a Republican-led debate on the Democrats' $871 billion plan. The first effort passed 60-40 early Monday on a straight party-line vote.

House poised to pass health bill
House poised to pass health bill

The House moved Saturday night toward a vote on the most sweeping healthcare bill in generations, one that would guarantee health coverage to almost all Americans.

After a personal push from President Barack Obama, the House of Representatives Saturday stood poised to pass historic healthcare legislation that would guarantee virtually all Americans access to care.

A new obstacle course awaited in the Senate.

Amid contentious health care issues, there's a lot lawmakers agree on
Amid contentious health care issues, there's a lot lawmakers agree on

WASHINGTON — The mounting Senate tension in these last days of the 2009 session is all about public options, Medicare and abortion policy, but step away from the rhetorical flames and it turns out that a lot of lawmakers from both parties agree on many proposals to change the nation's health care system.

The headlines will say that Senate Democrats struggled Monday to find common ground on the more contentious issues, and President Barack Obama planned to meet with them Tuesday afternoon.

At the same time, though, there's little discord over plans to require insurers to offer a minimum amount of coverage to nearly everyone, and the Democratic-authored House of Representatives and Senate bills bar insurers from denying coverage or raising rates because of pre-existing conditions.

Healthcare bill's next step: Plenty of compromises
Healthcare bill's next step: Plenty of compromises

The Senate began its final, frantic steps toward passage of historic healthcare legislation on Sunday, as lawmakers and interest groups began turning their attention to the difficult battles over abortion, taxes and the public option that lie ahead.

The Senate early Monday morning is expected to cut off a Republican-led debate on the Democratic-authored $871 billion healthcare overhaul, a crucial step that will move the package close to final approval in that chamber later this week.

Once that happens, probably Wednesday or Thursday, the bill will have to be reconciled with the version the House of Representatives passed last month.
BY DAVID LIGHTMAN
McClatchy News Serice

WASHINGTON -- Democrats are calling the Senate's healthcare bill a first big step toward insuring more Americans and controlling costs, while Republicans counter that it's the first step toward bigger government and higher taxes.

The two parties are locked in a fierce battle to sway public opinion, and whoever wins it will win the healthcare struggle, which now looks likely to stretch into 2010.

The next legislative step is expected at about 7 a.m. Tuesday, when the Senate plans to take a second vote on cutting off a Republican-led debate on the Democrats' $871 billion plan. The first effort passed 60-40 early Monday on a straight party-line vote.

If the Senate passes the bill later this week, as expected, negotiators from both chambers of Congress will begin trying to reconcile the Senate measure and one the House of Representatives passed last month.

One threat to eventual passage is the public's view of the legislation, said Paul Ginsburg, the president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan Washington research group.

It could take several weeks for the conference to produce a bill, and ``that's a long time for public opinion to shift,'' he said, and its success, particularly in an election year, will depend on ``how this plays out with the public over the next few months.''

Signs of what could happen next are mixed.

``There's pretty broad agreement on a lot,'' said Elizabeth Carpenter, a health policy analyst at the New America Foundation, a center-left Washington research group.

Under both bills, insurers would be barred from rejecting anyone because of preexisting conditions.

Gone, too, would be the practice in many states of charging women more than men, and insurers would be limited in how much they could increase rates on older people.

Consumers would be able to shop for coverage through exchanges, much as they now scan the Internet for the best airline fares. Most people would have to obtain a certain level of coverage, and they would have to pay penalties if they fail to do so.

Both houses agree on financial help for people having trouble affording coverage: They both would provide aid to families earning up to about $88,000 per year.

What could derail the entire effort are areas in which Democratic leaders have struggled for months to find common ground: abortion, taxes and the public option.

Ultimately, Democrats will write the final bill, because they control 60 Senate seats -- enough to cut off extended debate -- and 258 of the House's 435 seats. However, that means appealing to the approximately 52 moderate-to-conservative Blue Dogs in the House, as well as to the eight to 12 centrist Democrats in the Senate.

That's likely to mean important concessions on the three big sticking points.

Already, liberals' preference for a government-run insurance alternative and giving women more access to elective abortions faded when moderate senators balked.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who over the weekend provided the crucial 60th vote to cut off debate, explained a big reason he went along:

``The Senate healthcare bill is not perfect. Yet it doesn't include a public option or taxpayer funding of abortion I worked to exclude.''

One of the public option's biggest boosters, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., realized that without the moderates, the entire healthcare bill could be defeated.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/1393633.html

Time to call every Senator that didn't vote for the bill and tell them they are fired. You don't want coverage for people with pre-existing conditions? You want insurance companies to drop people when they're sick? You want millions of Americans to have no access to healthcare. Fuck you, you don't deserve to be in the Senate.

Democrats tried to reach out to Republicans for ideas and input and the Republicans acted like a bunch of babies just screaming "no, no, no whaaaa!".

Now reconcile this with the public option in there that fully two thirds of America and most doctors want in this bill and we'll truly have a great step forward.
 
GOP Voted To Delay Funding For Troops -- As Part Of Health Care Debate?
Eric Kleefeld | December 21, 2009, 3:05PM
Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!
68Share

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Share
20 diggs
Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend
Send to a friend!

To email: Your Name: Your email:

Everybody knows the health care debate has become more and more contentious, and dominated by a Republican parliamentary effort to delay the debate. But an under-appreciated aspect of this whole controversy -- exceedingly rare, if not unprecedented -- is the fact that it's even affected defense spending, with Senate Republicans having worked to hold that up, too!

Late on Thursday night, the Senate voted 63-33 to break a Republican filibuster of the defense appropriations bill. Only three Republicans voted against this delay of military spending: Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME). The filibuster was part of a Republican effort to further delay the health care bill.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...r-troops----as-part-of-health-care-debate.php

These idiots need to go.
 
i feel so let down by this that republicans once again won this debate and beat us in the ground :
Obama was to remain firm and put up a public option thats it and leave the rest to congress instead he let the republicans push him around like a shopping cart ; nothing- will come of this and watch the republicans will win in the fall elections and everything will go on hold untill they take re-controll of congress and the senate :
they may even try impeachment :
The key to all this is Ed sold public plan better than Obama ?? we got hosed on this one again - i feel so bad IF i see a republican tonight I m gonna wipp his ass on GP
 
I'm disappointed that there is not a public option any more. If there will be a law that states everyone must have health insurance then there should be a public option. We left the health problem to the insurance companies already and they failed to fix the problem (even caused the cost increase in medical expenses).
 
I wonder if you can sue insurance companies that refuse to insure you now that it's a fineable offence to NOT have health-care insurance.
 
I wonder if you can sue insurance companies that refuse to insure you now that it's a fineable offence to NOT have health-care insurance.

Not effective yet, but it would be an interesting case if played right.

Most likely is they will over everyone coverage, at a non-customized/non-group rate. It just boils down to how much are you gonna pay for the everyone coverage.

I've been told to expect a 30% increase again this year just for "cost of healthcare". Last year was a 15% increase for cost, and 15% for usage.
 
Just wait until you renew this year. I know I can't.
I have group insurance through my employer. They increased our cost again this year. My neighbor has his own business and buys an individual policy. His will be the true test for the increase.
I wonder if you can sue insurance companies that refuse to insure you now that it's a fineable offence to NOT have health-care insurance.
If there is no other option then they can not refuse you. However, if the government does not put a cap on what they can charge then the insurance companies will rake in the dough while we suffer. There is no public option to fall back on and therefore the insurance companies will, I predict, form a secret cartel to set the prices.
 
I have group insurance through my employer. They increased our cost again this year. My neighbor has his own business and buys an individual policy. His will be the true test for the increase.
The stats given above were for our group, but we were told "cost" went up the same across the board. We'll see what happens.
 
Does anyone know if there will at least be an oversight committee to keep an eye on insurance companies?
 
Five to ten years from now the people who are whining the most about "socialism" and "too much government involvement" will be screaming that the government should have done something to avoid the crisis.
 
see they just need to wrap it in something macho then it will be okay. like that socialist thing they did in iraq to make sure haliburton got all them big contracts disguised as the war on terror.
 
see they just need to wrap it in something macho then it will be okay. like that socialist thing they did in iraq to make sure haliburton got all them big contracts disguised as the war on terror.
It's only "socialism" to a republican if it doesn't work in your favor.
 
Back
Top