Blogs and Stories
Next Battle for Health Care
Saul Loeb, AFP / Getty Images
Obama and the Democrats won a huge victory in the House, but a minefield awaits in the Senate—and it has nothing to do with the public option.
The health-care reform bill that passed the House of Representatives late Saturday night is far from a perfect bill. In fact, the over-the-top rhetoric of the Republican opposition (Rep. Mike Pence went so far during the debate as to claim that passage would represent a repudiation of the American Revolution) tended to obscure the fact that it’s a relatively modest measure that would leave most people’s health care basically the same. Still, it represents a titanic step forward. Many presidents, from Harry Truman to Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, have sought to create a universal health-care system in the United States. None of them have so much as persuaded Congress to bring a bill to the floor for a vote. Saturday night, one house of Congress not only voted, it voted yes.
The sticking point for health care is not likely to be the much-hyped debate over the creation of a “public option” but rather the banal issue of revenue.
Nevertheless, health-care reform is hardly out of the woods. Several months ago, after all, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Henry Waxman’s historic cap and trade bill that would, if signed into law, be the most important piece of environmental legislation in the history of the world. But of course it hasn’t been signed into law. Instead, we’re waiting to see what the United States Senate will do.
With health care, it seems fairly likely that the Senate will, in the end, pass a comprehensive reform measure. But even if that happens, Democratic leaders will then face the challenging task of reconciling the House and Senate versions of health-care legislation. The sticking point here is not likely to be the much-hyped debate over the creation of a “public option” but rather the banal issue of revenue. Both the House and the Senate leadership are determined to finance health-care reform in a fiscally responsible, deficit-reducing way. That means a combination of savings from Medicare and new taxes. Hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes—the inevitable fly in the ointment of any big new liberal idea.
And the House and Senate ideas about where to get the money are extremely different. The House bill raises the funds, in essence, by soaking the rich—imposing a 5.4 percent tax on the incomes of individuals earning in excess of $500,000 or couples earning more than $1 million. The Senate’s approach is quite different. Right now, income that’s received in the form of employer-sponsored health insurance, unlike other kinds of fringe benefits your employer might give you, doesn’t count as income for tax purposes. The Senate would phase that tax exemption out over time, initially by subjecting rare, high-value, so-called Cadillac plans to taxation. In other words, the relatively small number of Americans who have health plans worth more than $8,000 for an individual or $21,000 for a family would need to pay taxes on their health insurance. But those thresholds would be indexed to the rate of overall inflation, not to the rate at which health-care costs grow, meaning that more and more people could be affected over time.
• Paul Begala: Forget Bipartisanship
• Sally Denton: Next Stop, the Senate
• Conor Friedersdorf: The Holes in Health ReformThe virtue of the House’s approach is that it’s egalitarian, and it sticks to the president’s campaign promise to eschew any form of tax increase on the middle class. The Senate idea is also egalitarian overall—most of the people with extremely valuable insurance plans are people with high incomes. But it would bite some middle-class families in the short run, and a larger swath of the middle class in the long run. This is actually also the virtue of the plan. Most economists believe that the tax exemption for health insurance distorts decision-making and drives up health-care costs.
The merits of the two approaches aside, the work of a political compromise will be extremely difficult. The House’s approach seems to have almost no support in the Senate, and wasn’t even seriously considered by members of the Senate Finance Committee. Conversely, the Senate’s approach is opposed by labor unions, and over 150 House Democrats have signed a letter saying they also oppose it. The party leadership, simply put, has very little margin for error when it comes to trying to sort this issue out. A handful of defections from the 219 Democrats who voted in favor of reform last night could probably be made up, but not much more than a handful. And in the Senate, it essentially required Democratic unanimity to pass bills in the face of routine filibustering and solid GOP opposition.
There hasn’t been much rancor around this issue, simply because it hasn’t been in the public view. But it will be soon. How can health-care reform pass if it’s financed by a mechanism that key moderate senators have dubbed a “non-starter?” Alternatively, how can you imagine a universal health-care bill passing with no Republican support over the opposition of the AFL-CIO? Comprehensive health-care reform is closer than ever to happening, but it’s still far from obvious that it will happen.
Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Politically Scandalous Deficit Fixes
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Brilliant Speeches Only Get You So Far
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
How to Win 2010
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
octavio
Nov/9/9/1:47 A.M.
The crooked republican senators and the blue-dogs ( including
Lieberman and his wife ) are health care industry whores.
These unscrupulous ( crooked ) republican senators
have only one thing in mind.That is to oppose any bill ( or any
thing sponsored by Barack Obama.Why?
Because, they ( the crooked republican senators )
are doing their best to make the USA president fail.It is obvious that these crooked republican senators are racists,
they can not stand to have a black person as a USA President or
a latino woman as a USA Supreme Court Justice;All of these
republican senators voted against Sonia Sotomayor.
These crooked republican senators are not interested
in the well-being of the average John Doe.Since their masters are the giant corporations e,g; the pharmaceuticals and the
crooked health insurance companies.These whores are going to do what the lobbyts tell them to do.
Ignore the crooked republican senators,ram the
Public Health Care Bill through the senate and stop
the fraud being perpetrated on the USA taxpayers.
It is possible that some of these senators will remember
to put their country first and come up with some remnants of
patriotism and vote for the Public Health Care Bill.Otherwise in
the future the only ones voting for them will be the filthy rich and
the crooked large corporations.
Pass the Public Health Care Bill as soon as possible
and as soon as it passes make it effective immediately.Other-
wise the Stinky USA Health Care Industry with its unethical
medical doctors and unethical dentists will keep screwing
the sick and the USA taxpayers.
crypto
I believe you're mistaken. Just talking with people it seems that the ones who are against it are the ones who are determined to take care of themselves. they don't want government help. The ones who favor it are the ones who believe the government should take care of everything. Much of our nation has become government dependent. And before you get on my case, I honestly don't care. There is one point that I don't understand. How can you demand that an insurance company, government or private, must provide insurance to an already existing illness. Would you buy a house after it had become termite and rot ridden. I don't think so. So why should I insure someone who I already know is eaten up with cancer?? That dog won't hunt.
roger37
You're ALREADY paying for the person eaten up with cancer who has no insurance! Notwithstanding that you seem ready to let that person die in the street, as the way things are now, he will show up at an ER presenting advanced symptoms and incur huge costs before he dies.
You already pay for that! How many times do you people have to be told that?
If you have health care that deals with this early, costs are much cheaper and the person doesn't have to die in the advanced stages of a terrible disease.
How goddamn self-centered do we have to be before the anti-health care people finally get a frigging conscience?
StellaRay
Which is why for profit insurance is immoral. A person with cancer is not a termite rotted house. The fact that so many in this country see human lives in terms of risk and profit is a sad commentary on America the not so beautiful after all.
roger37
...not to mention that we're fast becoming a world-wide joke because of our greedy, mean-spirited arrogance.
rsbsail
Are democrat doctors and dentists unethical? Or are they just crooked?
attackley
Name calling does not promote debate, but there are times it is necessary to let of steam. You have pointed out a critical problem in both versions. The lead time for implementation is way too long. Nothing this big can be implemented immediately, especially the public plan and the exchanges. But I don't see why some of the other reforms can't be implemented a lot sooner, especially the ban on denials of coverage due to pre-existing conditions. If the House and Senate can't work out their differences, how about medicare for everyone?
crypto
I guess I didn't express that right. OK , now you have an insurance company. I come in and tell you I just discovered I have cancer so I want to get some insurance. As a company you can't sell me an insurance policy cheap because you already know that you're gonna have to pay out big time for cancer treatment. Maybe I'm missing something here but like 'em or not these companies are in business. Where's the business end of this taking on a liability that you can't possibility make any money from. The company is betting the policy holder won't get sick so they can make money. The way I'm hearing this is the company although being told that the policy holder is already sick must insure them anyway. If anyone can name one business that operates that way please tell me.
floridabob
It is time for the WH and Dem leadership to start kicking a__ and taking names. Get a Senate bill passed, get the two bills reconciled and passed then signed. Let our Govt move on to the other equally pressing problem of resurrecting the economy, not just for the banks and wall street, but for the millions of Americans who are so badly hurting. I know it is difficult to do, the average American is not able to push large sums of money to election and re-election bids, which is the PRIMARY concern of all of out elected officials, ... I don't know how to finish this sentence.
Aslanleon
We get it. All Republican politicians are dishonest, doctors and dentists are unethical and want to cheat the sick instead of heal them. And stinky? A five year old says stinky.
There are good reasons to support the health care bill and good reasons to oppose it. You haven't made a single point of either.
gameon
Every post of octavios is the same,I've seen the "stinky usa healthcare" line about 3 or 4 times now.This is the level of debate we get from the left.
AlanD2
gameon: The level of debate from the right is not that great either. How many times have you seen health care reform called "socialist" or a "government takeover"?
By the way, "stinky usa healthcare" is not too far from the truth. At least for the 45,000 uninsured Americans who die each year because they can't afford life-saving medical treatment.
Aslanleon
AlanD2 - The 45,000 who die each year from lack of health insurance is a myth. It derives from a flawed study done by people who had an agenda. This creates dubious data of little worth, as it did in this case.
helloricko
So Aslanleon,
You state that Gameon's data is a myth derived from a flawed study done by people who had an agenda. I believe that your statement is an unsubstantiated myth derived from a person who had an agenda. What makes YOUR myth more compelling?
mcasio
Aslanleon:
Do you personally think anyone dies in this country due to lack of healthcare?
Aslanleon
My 'myth' is more compelling because I am on the board of the local health clinic and know the reality of health care. We treat everybody regardless of whether they have insurance or medicaid or medicare. If they aren't covered and they have money to pay for their care, we collect. IF they don't have money, we don't collect. That's the reality. And that's the law.
I made no representation as to whether people die because of lack of insurance or not, nor can I think of any way to construct a study that would deliver a realistic and accurate set of data. You make global claims on the evidence of a dubious study-- I make no such claims, but merely note what actual practice is at our clinic and by law at hospitals and clinics throughout the country.
Aslanleon
mcasio- "Do you personally think anyone dies in this country due to lack of healthcare?" First, do you mean lack of health care or lack of medical insurance. These are two utterly different problems. People can of course die from lack of health care. The reasons why they don't get health care are more complicated. Since hospitals and clinics are required by law to provide treatment to everyone, I would think that ignorance of that law might cause a person to not seek care, but the reality of the availability of the care is not the factor you think it is. When my father was being treated at Sloane-Kettering for cancer, the Shah of Iran had just been treated there. So were several poor people without medical insurance my father talked to. Our medical care is far more universal than its critics state.
AlanD2
Aslanleon: You are claiming that Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance are biased liars? Why don't you post some links to the sources of your claim? You do have some sources, don't you?
Interested readers can check this report and make their own decisions:
http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-fin ds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
(Take out spaces if you copy and paste this link.)
(Easier to use: http://tinyurl.com/ox8u4d )
(Original report: http://tinyurl.com/l52v8c )
el-andaluz
Oye octavio, which Acorn sting video did you star in?
Natural-Selection
A huge victory by 2 votes?
gracie99
The Senate plan will not be taxing affluent taxpayers but instead mostly blue/pink collar union workers whose unions negotiated decent (but hardly luxurious) health insurance in lieu of higher salaries. And given that economy, it is unlikely that their unions will be able to negotiate higher wages to compensate for the new tax.
In effect, the plan will mostly raise money by increasing taxes on working class people. And although some wealthy and middle class people will pay more also, THE NEW TAX WILL BE REGRESSIVE, meaning that it will cost working class people a higher portion of their income than will be paid by those who are more affluent.
I'm probably one of the people who will be taxed for my union-negotiated health insurance. I'm a single secretary making $40,000/year, and I pay about $3,000 in out-of-pocket every year in addition to what my "Cadillac" insurance covers.
My job is with a municipality that is currently having to reduce the workforce due to the economic downturn, so I doubt that my wages will be negotiated upward to make up for the taxation of health benefits. Given that I'm single and have health problems and my retirement savings were severely affected by recent economic downturn, I don't expect ever to be able to retire. I can't afford vacations, etc., and if I'm taxed on my health insurance, I'll survive, but my life will become fairly austere.
indieinva
gracie- you make good points against the current Baucus Bill revenue plan with your personal example. I do have a couple of questions.
How does one calculate the actual dollar value of their "health plan?" Is it based on premiums paid by employee/employer or benefits actually received to reach the taxable rate of $8,000 per individual?
And, what do you think of the House bill's revenue source of taxing based on personal income level?
Personally, I know something/someone will have to pay higher taxes to offset a portion of the cost of health insurance reform. I just don't want it paid for on the backs of the middle class who have paid disproportionately in personal income tax under the last administration.... If your example is accurate, the revenue source in the Baucus Bill needs to be reworked.
robwriter
Not to worry. The millionaires of the Senate will find a way to protect the criminal interests of corporations they work for. If, belatedly, any get voted out of office, they'll go to work for the same companies they protected from regulation and reform. They'll get to fly in the jets, just like they always did. Whatever comes of this, it will bayonet the pubic in the guts. Single payer, the one most crucial step toward real reform and affordability, was never even on the table. At the end of this fiasco, no one will be rescued, 40 million more will be taken hostage, the Congress will still have insurance coverage and campaign contributions. I won't say "Bet your life on it!" You already have. Thanks for voting.
neverlate
The Democrartic plan to expand insurance coverage does nothing to decrease cost and will result in health care becoming 21% of the economy. This will wreck havic on all and result in extremely high unemployment rates. Also, anyone who thinks taxes on the rich will not eventually trickle down to their level is living in lala land. Obama stated that health care as 16% of the economy was way too high, but he declares a Bill that will rsult in int becoming 21% of the economy a great success? This is not health care reform, it is reckless pandering to their liberal base using tax payer dollars!
debbieqd
You're using FOX talking points. When the wealthy were taxed at 90% the economy was booming. Under George Bush, the United States saw the smallest growth in GDP in decades. So much for tax cuts to the rich. Nothing, absolutely nothing ever trickles down, good or bad.
Have you once complained about your tax dollars going to useless, unwinnable wars? Do you want to build up Iraq and Afghanistan when your own schools and hospitals are falling apart? Do you want 50,000 American deaths in Afghanistan while al-Quaeda moves to Yemen and Somalia? Do you even care that this year 40,000 Americans died right here at home because they didn't have health insurance?
gameon
For someone who hates talking points so much you sure use alot of Dem. talking points.You have put up a straw man up to try and justify a power grab by lying politicians.
You put to much "hope" in an unproven Pres. who comes from one of the most corrupt political machines in the country,chicago.This health care scam will dwarf any of the wars that you have decided,with your vast foreign policy experiance are "unnecessary".
Politicians can't run a lemonade stand properly,only a fool would allow the gov. to make healthcare decisions for them.
AlanD2
Well said, debbieqd.
The number of deaths of uninsured Americans reported by Harvard Medical School was closer to 45,000. I have often wondered why conservatives, who are so pro-life, aren't outraged by this number.
http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-fin ds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
(Easier to use: http://tinyurl.com/ox8u4d )
(Original report: http://tinyurl.com/l52v8c )
Not only this, but the Johns Hopkins Children's Center recently reported that a lack of health care led to 17,000 US child deaths over the last 20 years.
Conservatives, where are you on saving these children by passing health care reform?
ukeman
not to mention that righties have NO solutions.
StellaRay
gameon,
It doesn't take vast foreign policy experience to know that Iraq was an unneccesary war and that Bush turned his back on Afhganistan to fight it. It's no straw man argument. It's an argument about values. It is entirely rational to believe we would have been better off spending a trillion on fixing our broken health care system than fighting a useless war we were lied into.
The CBO has showed that health care reform can save this country money, although I know you feel entitled to your own facts.
And finally much of your life is better run by the government. Imagine if your fire department and police department were run for private profit. Can you see the possibilities for abuse? You can't pay the fire department, your house and everything in it burns down.
That's exactly what's happening with health care in this country. You can't pay for it, you die or go bankrupt. What's different about this than a culture that allows your house to burn down if you're not well off?
Aslanleon
ukeman - Conservatives have plenty of solutions to the health care problem. The Republicans introduced a bill with some of them. Having people actually pay for their medical care directly is one. Eliminating all but catastrophic care or care over a certain cash level a year reintroduces market forces into the medical industry which drives down costs and increases productivity and efficiency. Tort reform to eliminate predatory suits is another, as is a real free, competitive market for medical insurance. There are plenty of other reforms that could reduce medical costs while increasing access to services. We won't be seeing any of them being proposed by Democrats, unfortunately.
AlanD2
Aslanleon said: "Conservatives have plenty of solutions to the health care problem. The Republicans introduced a bill with some of them."
Right, Aslanleon. And the CBO said that the Republican bill would result in an increase in the number of uninsured Americans. The CBO also said that the bill would cost more than the Democratic bill that just passed.
Republicans: Looking out for the insurance industry!
gameon
Have any of you libs. looked at a map of the middle east?Iraq and Afgh. are the launching pads for attacks against Iran and Pakistan should those countries become a real threat against the U.S.,it's obvious.It's a strategy to avoid having to do an invasion on either country starting from scratch or having to fly over Iran from Saudi Arabia to take out military sites in Pakistan should their nuclear arsenal fall into the wrong hands.Iraq is all about Saudi oil and providing a buffer between Iran and our oil allies in Saudi Arabia.I for one think it's a smart move to take proactive approach to stabilizing the region in order to avoid an american bloodpath should Iran and Pakistan get crazy.What would your answer be,a normandy style invasion of the persian Gulf and the total collapse of the world economy?Or do nothing and have our oil supply fall into extremists hands?Cowardice shows itself in the presence of adversity,and you my friends have been shown for what you are.You daily reap the rewards of freedom but you never will fight for it.You live in a liberal utopia fantasyland in your head but the rest of us live in reality.
What a luxury you Dems. have,sitting on your pedestals telling everyone how to spend their money.You take what's not yours and then berate those who complain about it.You whined for 8 years about Bush unilatteralism and then force the costliest Gov. program in history down the throats of fellow americans who have a constitutional right to not have you make health decisions for them.
Your arrogance is unmeasurable as long as it's the other guy who's paying for it.
coltraning
Yah, as opposed to the 20% of the economy it is now. You righties fetishized he CBO when it said Baucus's plan would not save any money. Now that the CBO says the house plan will TRIM 110 billion dollars from the deficit, the numbers are all wet. As for taxes, how about going back to the tax rate for millionaires of that great socialist Ronald Reagan: 50%. Or the top tax rate of the mad marxist Eisenhower: 90%
Still, the number one thing that could really kill this bill is the noxious abortion provision shoved in by Suptak-Pitts the biggest restriction on abortion rights since the procedure was made legal 36 years ago. I have to believe that Pelosi knows it will be stripped out during conference committee...Yglesias doesn't write about it, but 41 members of the progressive caucus will vote no if the post-conference bill has those restrictions in it. The progressive caucus standing firm, aided and abetted by liberal advocacy groups, is what got the public option back in the health bill (that and every poll showing from 55-70% of Americans support it), and the same thing will happen with the anti-abortion provision. I am convinced that any "democrat" who votes against health care unless it bans access to abortion will face a primary challenge in 2010.
jalehw
In 2004 the Medicare Drug Benefit which was passed by the Bush Admin cost the U.S. $1.2 TRILLION...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html
"The White House released budget figures yesterday indicating that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost more than $1.2 trillion in the coming decade, a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003."
AND, on top of that, the Bush Admin lied to Congress about the cost...
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/4-09-07Scully.htm
"Sept. 7, 2004 - The Department of Health and Human Services has been ordered by the Government Accountability Office to recover the salary paid former Medicare administrator Thomas A. Scully, because he ordered a staff member to withhold information about the cost of the new Medicare bill from Congress, according to a statement from Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ). The GOA found Scully acted illegally."
Where were these right-wingers then? Why were they not making any noise about the cost and the lying?
dungan
Great...they lied so we can lie. The problem is with Washington and power. That is why we should try to take back as much power from Washington as possible. It does not matter what party is in power, they all lose control.
sandyua
I agree--the real issue here is power--they want to control everything--for our own good, of course! Something happens to moral, intelligent men and women when they get an office--they become individuals who think they are smarter than the people they represent, become incredibly conceited and become absolutely power hungry--I am afraid of these people. Although I don't know all of the politicians in the country--I do know my own (Oklahoma), and I know very few that I feel really care about anything but power and money. We have one in Oklahoma that I believe in--and I am still watching him very carefully!
Grimmace
"Where were these right-wingers then? Why were they not making any noise about the cost and the lying?"
I guess you are talking about Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism", which is neither compassionate nor conservative. Yes, yes, yes, yes, you are 100% correct that Bush and the Republicans that supported this mess deserve blame for this tragic expansion of Government. But this travesty was an idea that came from the Democrats and it was passed with overwhelming support from Democrats. The Democrat's only complaint with Medicare Part D is that it wasn't generous enough and didn't go far enough. This was but another bad example of Bush's go along to get along way of Domestic policy that contributed to an outrageous growth of Government during his tenure.
So yes, please Blame Bush and the Republicans that supported this measure, but please tell the whole story. If anything your recitation of history should be a warning that all Big Government Programs end up costing far more than is ever estimated during the legislating. All Big Government programs are subject to fraud, abuse, and incompetence. So why don't you join me now in opposing the new Government Health care travesty that is about to be unfoiled to our citizenry.
debbieqd
Exactly. And the Medicare Drug Benefit program was unfunded! The hyposcrisy of these Republicans knows no bounds.
sandyua
PLEASE--it isn't a party thing--hypocrisy is on both sides....in abundance!
Aslanleon
If we're going to talk about lying, why are you lying about conservatives not being against the Medicare Prescription Benefit? Conservative magazines were very clear in their belief that the program would be very expensive and warned against it. Liberal Dems had no problem with the bill. Conservative Republicans, as opposed to the moderate and liberal Republicans screamed bloody murder.
bgeasyas123
now who's lying?
Aslanleon
Who's lying? That would be you if you think that conservatives weren't against the Medicare Prescription Benefit. Weekly Standard did two whole issues on it, for example. Do you read the conservative magazines or follow conservative commentators? If not, how do you know what they were saying?
neverlate
So your suggestion is that every one shut up and let the Dems lie because, in your view, Bush lied and got away with it? Wonderful logic!
dungan
Banal?! That is the problem with all that is happening in this country...we like to spend without any accountability. Maybe you don't think that how we pay for these programs is important, but you would be wrong. We need to know what is in these programs and how they will be paid for. History has shown us that every other program the government starts, it is not self supporting or even successful!
ashatz48
"A relatively modest measure"???? Mr, Ygelsias is either drunk or has not read the 1,990 pages of horse manure cranked out bu the House.Under the House bill, if someone who is not presently covered does not buy a qualified plan (naturally the Feds get to define what qualified means), they are fined for not being covered. Now you can mince words and say a fine is not a tax (anyone see the insane interview that the President had with George Stepanopolous who actually confronted the Pres with a dictionary), but when the government is taking money out of my pocket it's a tax, period.
Aslanleon
If you refuse to buy a policy, which can cost up to $15,000, you can ultimately be fined $250,000 or sent to jail for five years. The government expects massive resistance. The description of how the bill will be paid for includes billions the Feds expect to collect in fines from people who fail to obey this law. Be prepared for massive resistance-- the government certainly is, unless they're lying about how much they expect to collect from people who refuse to cooperate with this takeover of medical insurance.
cbeenthere
The government expects massive resistance...from leon. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Aslanleon
If the government does not expect resistance, why have they said that they expect to collect billions in fines for people who won't comply with the law? By all means, don't believe me-- read the budget office's account on how it will be paid for.
sandyua
ashatz48-you are absolutely right! Why in the world would the American people allow the government to have even MORE power? It is insane!!!
crypto
aslanleon: Yeppers, from $2500.00 jail to $250,000.00 jail depending on income and status. I don't think congressmen and women and senators are required to play though. Here's another #$#$%%^!! Even after they retire the taxpayer continues to provide health care to them plus their salaries. And they've never paid a dime for it. This freedon we have ain't free less you work in the federal government.
ps2301
Women have to see that the liberals talk the talk to women but don't walk the walk. the House bill sold out women in the worst possible way! not only does it prohibit abortion coverage in public gvt-run plan, but mandates that women must use their own money to buy private insurance that is prohibited from offering reproductive services.
Obama is a weasel and Pelosi is a sex-traitor. They made this deal. Liberals talk nice to women then when they get to uppity slap them around with sexist talk and call a bill that sets back our freedoms a "huge victory."
Wise up gals, women are just toys to Mr. Yglesias. If this health care bill refused to cover treatment for AIDs you can beat ur last dollar Mr. Y would never call it a huge victory.
Nothing like the smell of hypocrite in the morning!
Aslanleon
If there was no provision banning abortion, the health care bill wouldn't have passed. If you think that you can bulldoze the majority of the American people who are against any public money for abortion into paying for what they consider to be morally wrong, you're not dealing in realities. This bill puts the government in a position to dictate health care for the entire country. Right now people can choose whether their health care should cover abortion or not. Obviously, it is impossible to take away that right from a free people. Your desire to do so speaks volumes about the real agenda of the left.
urbancowgirl
As I note below before your comment came up, that right - the right to choose whether one's health care should cover abortions or not - has already been taken away from every woman working for the government. Why not have two different public option plans in the same way that insurance companies have standard or basic care? Why not even tell people to pay a bit more per month if they want the luxury (though it shouldn't be a luxury) of choice included in their health care?
And there is no weight to the argument about outrage for public money going to certain things that people deem "morally wrong." Pacifists pay taxes that fund wars, Catholics pay taxes that fund contraception, death penalty opponents pay money that fund executions. But all of these events are currently legal - as are abortions - and so Americans don't get to have a say in how the government uses money for these endeavors.
This is not an abortion issue - whether or not abortions should be legal is an abortions issue; whether or not women are able to access the same health care as other women is an equality issue.
cbeenthere
Yay urbancowgirl.
urbancowgirl
It really si tragic but, unfortunately, nothing new. Government funded insurance plans (aka plans that government employees across America purchase through their employer - the US) have never covered abortions. Every single year since 1976, Congress votes on the Hyde Amendment, which states that federal funds can not cover abortions, and every year that amendment passes.
As a young woman working for the government, I don't even have the option to pay more for a plan that would allow me to make that choice. Because I am a civil servant - because I work for the public good - because I serve America, I am not afforded the same opportunity to choice in my health care as my fellow women.
So, while I understand your outrage and while I am saddened that now non-civil servants will also be subjected to this inequity, this discrimination is nothing new. Of course I wish Pelosi and Obama would have stood up for us, but no Democratic congress in the past 33 years has stood up for me and my government-employed uterus so I'm not too surprised or horrified.
Aslanleon
You have inadvertently underlined the real reason why government paid health care is a serious moral problem. If a person pays for her own abortion, then there is a legitimate moral argument that I have no stake in regulating abortion in any way. If I am to be compelled to pay for abortions, then I do have a moral stake in the abortion issue and have every right to work against abortions, or to prohibit the government from paying for them, as we have done for the last thirty-three years with the Hyde Amendment. Without this prohibition, the health care bill would not have passed regardless of what Pelosi or Obama may have wanted.
The same principle applies to the entire health care bill. If it is going to compel people to get certain kinds of health care and not others, or to behave in certain ways or be fined or imprisoned, then it is definitely my duty to work to see that it meets the standards of ethics and medical care that I advocate. I certainly apply the same standards to my own private health care insurance, which is chosen by those who are covered by it. The same rule would apply to any government program. The possibilities for continual political struggle and law suits is a trial lawyer's dream. Be prepared for that.
selahh
What I'm about to say will probably incite rage in the pro-choicers, but I'm going to say it anyway.
If a young woman wants to be irresponsible (before you go on about the need of abortion for rape victims and those with potential health issues, the fact is that is very rare. 93% of women get abortions because the child is unwanted or inconvenient), they have the right to have an abortion. So perhaps you should just be happy that this is legal, because I for one am not going to allow MY tax dollars to go towards killing a child that a mother deems inconvenient.
Would you condemn the female infanticide that is occuring in Asia? It's no different. So please stop throwing yourself a pity party because enough of us deem the action morally wrong to keep you from getting the procedure for free. Be thankful it's even legal, and go pay for it youself.
urbancowgirl
Aslan - you still don't address the issue of tax payers money only being used for "moral" purposes as I said above. Where do you draw the line? Whose moralities get to be backed up by the government? My argument is neither for nor against abortion, rather it is for equality. Just as I have no say in what my tax dollars get used for (be they for wars I'm morally against or prisoners I don't believe should be executed), I don't think anyone else should get to decide the moralities of the only health care I can afford. I just want to be treated like an equal citizen - I literally have less rights than you BECAUSE I work for you. You have the right to choose a health care plan that does or does not cover abortions. I do not. That's all.
selahh - I didn't mean to incite such harsh words from you. I know this is a sensitive debate and I myself used to be pro-life as well. As someone raised Catholic, I don't think I could ever have an abortion myself but I've also never been a 19 year old girl who was on the wrong end of a condom breaking or her birth control failing. I've never been perched on the edge of my life being about to begin when I found out another unwanted life would soon act as a parasite inside me for nine months. I've never been told that my child will probably be born with severe deformities. I understand where your frustration comes from. Like I said, I really don't think I myself could have an abortion. But that's a decision that you and I came to. How dare I take that same decision away from someone else. I really don't think I'm having a "pity party" over here - I think I'm making a rational argument for why this is not an abortion rights issue but a right to equal coverage in health care issue. You, however, have classified me as an irresponsible young girl upset that my health care won't cover all the rampant unprotected sex I've been having. I don't appreciate your characterization.
And finally - since I'm paid by the government, were I to ever be in such a situation where this difficult decision would need to be made and if I had made the extremely tough choice to abort the fetus, I would be using my own money - the money given to me by the National Treasury in order to pay for it. It's your tax dollars all the way. But just as you don't get to choose the lunch meat I buy at the grocery store, you don't get to say what I do with my money.
I know this is a tough debate to have so I'll stop there. I wish you both the best and hope that you are never ever faced with any of the scenarios I described above and that you treat those who are with compassion.
selahh
I'm sorry if my words seemed harsh and I did not intend to characterize you specifically as an "irresponsible young girl having rampant unprotected sex". I suppose I should clarify that the irresponsibility lies in being sexually active without accepting that becoming pregnant is a possible consequence. Let's face it, many of us who don't consider ourselves ready to have a child are sexually active, married or unmarried. I have already made the decision that should I become pregnant, prepared or not, I'm going to have the baby because I don't have the right to punish an innocent child for my actions.
My argument is that many of us deem this act of abortion morally wrong and will not stand for our tax dollars funding the procedure, whether through government employee health plans or government funded public health plans. I have great sympathy for those who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy, especially in the cases where there are potential health issues that indanger the lives of both the mother and the baby. That is when the moral issue gets more complex, and I can't be the one to say what is right or wrong. BUT, the majority of abortions do not occur for this reason, they occur simply because a woman deems having a child inconvenient to their current lifestyles. This, in my opinion, is incredibly selfish and irresponsible, and should not under any circumstances be paid for by the American taxpayers.
Aslanleon
urbancowgirl -" . . . you still don't address the issue of tax payers money only being used for "moral" purposes as I said above. Where do you draw the line?" In a representative democracy, you draw the line where you have the votes. A ban on the use of Federal money for abortion has enough support that Congressional members vote for it. When the government is using money to support things I disapprove of for ethical reasons, I have every right to object and try to stop them from doing so. What we have is two separate sets of rights conflicting-- your right to choose your own medical care and my right not to pay for abortion under the current laws. When you began your employment with the Federal government, you chose to work for them despite the Hyde Amendment. You now have every right to work to persuade your representatives to end it.
A further problem with religious exceptions are the Amish and other groups that do not believe in medical insurance. I come from an Amish background (grandparents.) They are exempted from Social Security, never take welfare, and do not subscribe to health insurance. If they are not exempted, then they will go to jail rather than comply. Where is the religious exemption, and if it is not there, what do you intend to do with the fastest growing religion in America?
AlanD2
ps2301: I agree, but we have to be practical, at least if we want to see the health care reform bill pass. We can't cure all the evils of the world with just one bill. I would much prefer to see illegal aliens covered, but this will not happen either.
I expect we will see a lot of legislation over the years that modify whatever bill finally gets passed. (This happened to Medicare too.) So don't give up hope for the long run.
So hold your nose and congratulate your members of Congress for what will likely be a great start on universal health care, finally passed after many attempts in the last hundred years.
aackc1
No on abortion, but yes on illegals. Sound politics. Congrats Democrats!
crypto
I know i'm gonna catch it for this but I think Pelosi is Obama's Monica.
pennsykid2000
The self-proclaimed "fiscal conservatives" in the Republican congresses of earlier in this decade voted to spend hundreds of billions to invade and occupy Iraq, and to give the wealthy huge tax cuts, all without any clamor that these be "deficit neutral". The result was a doubling of the national debt, from $5 to $10 trillion, after the decade began with surpluses. Now that we want to extend health care access to tens of millions without it and eliminate other inequalities, suddenly Republicans and blue Dogs demand that it not increase the deficit. Some values these people hold to, placing greater importance on stupid wars and tax cuts for the rich than health care for those without it. I guess they've forever abandoned any pretense of being the party of "family values".
Grimmace
So what you are essentially saying is that because the Republicans bankrupted us on efforts that you deem unworthy, we should now allow the Democrats to bankrupt us even more doing the things that you support.
eurydice9276
This isn't really directed at you, but at this incessant argument about the GOP and its past behavior - Yes, yes, yes, and blah, blah, blah - the Republicans spent pantloads of money (and BTW the Democrats did nothing to stop that). It happened, it's history. That's no reason not to try being fiscally responsible now.
Not being wealthy myself, I've got no problem if wealthy people are taxed some more, but the problem with relying on taxes like this is that they're a deterrent. If people start avoiding cadillac plans because of the cost, then how do you replace the revenue which comes from taxing them? The same is true if the pool of wealthy people grows smaller - where do you go for revenue after that?
I agree with you about spending money on wars - and actually, I wonder about this whole health care debate, which has been going on as if all of our other spending is properly directed. Obama tells us we can't have everything, but neither can he - maybe we can't have universal health care and play the universal soldier at the same time, and maybe we can't build up our own nation and every other nation at the same time - these are debates I haven't been hearing for quite some time.
AlanD2
eurydice9276 mentioned: "... (and BTW the Democrats did nothing to stop that).
You may not remember, but Republicans used reconciliation to pass many of the major bills which increased spending and our national debt:
- The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 1836, 3/26/01]
- The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts [HR 2, 3/23/03]
- Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 [HR 4297, 5/11/06]
- The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 [H. Con Res. 95, 12/21/05]
The use of reconciliation prevented Democrats from filibustering these bills, which might well have failed to get the 60 votes necessary to stop the filibusters and vote on the bills.
eurydice9276
AlanD2 - yes, I do remember. I also remember that the Democrats then regained the majority. I also remember that Democrats were major players, if not outright instigators, of the concept that home ownership should be a right - a noble concept which was executed with such bullying, blinders and back room deals that it ended up failing those it was supposed to help and plunging us into as much of (if not more than) a problem as have Bush's wars.
Haste, illogic, lack of understanding, poor planning, inattention to detail, stubbornness, refusal to consider other opinions, refusing to consider long-term effects, partisanship, cronyism, loyalties to special interests, all underlying the pursuit of some "noble cause" - we've seen this from both parties, time and time again. It's not un-American, unpatriotic, cold-hearted, selfish, stupid, or any other of the names Democrats and Republicans like to call people who question their grand schemes, whether they be war or a 2000 page health care plan - it's just being a prudent citizen.
Rant over - I feel much better now. :-)
ThinkAgain
Check the polls. The people supported these bills in large majorities and they were easy to understand.
But hey, go for it. Passing this convoluted mess with reconciliation is just what a public that thinks the government is out of touch and out of control will love. That assures the republicans will be able to get control and tweak all the nonsense out of it before it even really kicks in.
attackley
I don't like the Senate's version. We need to finance this with a regressive tax. It seems to me that the tax increase on the super rich in the House version is rather modest. I am in favor of raising their taxes a lot more so that we can have another stimulus package aimed primarily at jobs and infrastructure. But, health care reform is not the place to do that. I will be contacting my state senators and ask them to support the House plan on this point. I hope a lot of others do the same.
sadie101
I will be calling them and telling them anyone who votes in favor of the House version will be looking for a job very soon!
sonofloud
"huge victory" ?
The majority party gets a bill through one house of Congress and this is a "huge victory" ?
urbancowgirl
Unlike Republicans, Democrats don't vote with one mind. Our tent is a little bigger and dissent within the party is normal. So yeah, getting 220 people on board with one sweeping change is pretty impressive.
sonofloud
which is exactly with Obama's democrats can't get anything done.
ThinkAgain
I seem to recall you dems attacking Liebermann in Ct for not marching to your drum, despite the fact he overwhelmingly represented his constituents.
The dems are made up of a bunch of small one issue line in the sand interest groups. They don't give a damn about anything except that one issue. It's a big tent of self interest groups selling out to each other. In other words, a whole lot of nothing much at all.
urbancowgirl
"I seem to recall you dems attacking Liebermann in Ct for not marching to your drum, despite the fact he overwhelmingly represented his constituents."
According to a Research2000 poll conducted on Sept 8, 2009, 68% of Connecticut approve of some sort of government administered health insurance option. Only 21% were against. Source: http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2009/9/10/CT/369
So is Lieberman representing Connecticut or big insurance? Your argument would hold weight if what you said about Lieberman representing his state was actually true.
roger37
As a matter of fact, Lieberman's wife, Hassadah, sits on the board of Aetna Insurance.
AlanD2
sonofloud: When you consider that a health care reform bill has never gotten out of a congressional committee in the last hundred years, yes - this is indeed a huge victory.
Now we need a similar victory in the Senate.
sonofloud
Sorry but it takes a little more to impress me.
We'll see how you feel when/if the bill gets reconciled with the Senate.
Grimmace
"I am in favor of raising their (super rich) taxes a lot more so that we can have another stimulus package aimed primarily at jobs and infrastructure."
So let's take more money from the evil super rich so that they have less money to create jobs and instead we can take that money and have Government create some jobs through another stimulus? Great idea, let's expand the public sector in favor of the private sector yet again! And of course the evil super rich surely won't change their behavior in order to avoid those higher taxes.
Aslanleon
Don't make sense, Grimmace-- it only enrages them.
AlanD2
Grimmace: Nice Fox News talking point. The wealthy usually invest their money, which does little to create jobs.
Consider that one of the best times in America's economic history was during the 1950s, when the highest marginal tax rate on the wealthy was 90%. Under a Republican President, no less!
Aslanleon
"The wealthy usually invest their money, which does little to create jobs." This one statement disqualifies you from sensible conversation as regards economics. There is nothing that creates jobs except investment would be closer to the truth. No business expansion, the only real job creator, can be undertaken without investment. Government has seldom created any jobs that do not reduce the money available for investment and thus crucial to job creation and economic advancement.
Aslanleon
Alan - As for the tax rate in the 1950's, nobody but people who had a windfall income, like authors or game show winners, actually paid at that rate. There were so many loopholes that the rich often paid no taxes at all.
AlanD2
Aslanleon: Well, let's consider a wealthy person buying some stock. Who gets the money? The previous owner of the stock.
Does the company that issued the stock get any of this money? No. Does the company hire any new workers? No. Does the company make investments based on this stock sale? No.
So the investment by the wealthy person, who expects the value of the stock to go up, has not led to any business expansion or job creation.
Now I will agree that investments by venture capitalists do lead to business expansion and job creation, but VC is a high-risk business, and lots of wealthy people avoid this kind of risk.
selahh
Thanks for the intelligent response Aslanleon. I read that statement a bit earlier and just laughed. It was so illogical I just didn't figure it was worth my time to debate it, but I'm glad somebody did.
Aslanleon
Alan - Stock ownership isn't based on the stock merely rising. It's based on a belief that the management of the company which is determined by the stockholder's vote will keep the company prosperous and therefore lead to an increase in the price of the stock. If a company is undervalued, their stock will be bought up and the company revived with new management and new direction. It's not like buying a lottery ticket. Those that invest on that belief generally lose.
Aslanleon
Alan - I forgot to add another point. A company that is experiencing rapid expansion may also issue new stock that does indeed go directly to expansion and job creation.
AlanD2
Aslanleon said: "A company that is experiencing rapid expansion may also issue new stock that does indeed go directly to expansion and job creation."
Agreed. But this is similar to venture capitalism - a highly risky business. Not something that a lot of wealthy people are likely to do, as the probability of losing money is rather high.
ghudson68
If there's one other thing that needs a lot of patching after this is the rift among Democrats themselves - esp with conservative dems. http://www.newsy.com/videos/house_health_care_bill_approved. Victory will come at a cost - both figuratively and literally.
ukeman
WTF; senators refuse to consider rolling back tax bailouts for the rich?
It's become obvious in this whole debate who and where resistance to reform of any kind is centered. Who are the most OUT OF TOUCH with the needs of the majority of Americans.
What freaking planet do they live on?
I love how this plays right in to the right wing platform.
Dem majority? What a fricking joke.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.