After months of squabbling and tussling with each other as well as their Republican opposition, House Democrats finally produced the latest comprehensive result of their efforts in health care reform in the form of a whopping 1,990-page measure—and then proceeded to congratulate themselves in a public rally outside at the Capitol. —KA
The Washington Post:
The 1,990-page bill includes a version of the “public option” preferred by moderates and raises Medicaid eligibility levels to 150 percent of the federal poverty level for all adults, a steeper increase than in earlier drafts.
“Today we are about to deliver on the promise of making affordable, quality health care available for all Americans,” [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi said. “We are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges.”
[...] The House legislation aims to provide health insurance of one form or another to 96 percent of all Americans at an expected cost of just below $900 billion over 10 years, without increasing the federal budget deficit for at least 20 years, House Democrats said.
[...] The measure includes a new provision that would require the secretary of health and human services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, a proposal that is anathema to pharmaceutical companies.
It would require most Americans to obtain insurance and would require employers to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty. Small businesses would be exempt from the employer mandate if they had payroll less than $500,000 a year, double the threshold in the Democrats’ original bill, introduced in July.
Read more
By ardee, October 31, 2009 at 6:19 pm #
ridgerunner, October 31 at 6:12 pm
You may continue to evade, avoid and distort all you wish. You may even continue to refuse to accept that therapeutic abortions are a medical necessity in many cases.
I will continue to remind you that abortion is a medical procedure performed by a doctor, that its a procedure protected by the law of the land and will hopefully remain such until such time as a theocracy rules this nation.
Report thisBy ridgerunner, October 31, 2009 at 6:12 pm #
Ardee, once again someone who is an adsvocate for abortion misinterprets straightforward, logical facts. Nowhere in my post did I say that abortions should not be legal. What I said was that it is not a medical necessity (in almost all cases), it is an elective procedure and eklective procedures are usually disalloweds under healkth insurance contracts.
For the record, this is not a religious view and I do not and have not worked for an insurance company. However, for several years I was the administrator of corporate benefits, including health insurance, for a major corporate employer. When an employer (or an individual) negotgiates the insurance coverage critewria, it is clearly stated what is and what is not covered. Elective procedures, as well as pre-existing conditions, are usually not covered. Can they be? Of course, IF YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY THE EXTRA COST.
The more coverage you want, the higher the premium.
Report thisBy MarthaA, October 31, 2009 at 3:57 pm #
ONLY Medical Doctors and Medical Specialists——NOT abortion clinic owners or insurance companies——should be able to make medical decisions, after all, they went to school for nearly a decade with many long years of internships to earn their esteemed and distinct qualifications to be medical doctors empowered in their medical fields to determine medical need for medical services and I am of the opinion that the excellence these medical doctors have achieved should not in any way be undermined or countermanded by insurance companies or abortion clinic operators, or even medical doctor abortion clinic owner/operators that choose only to run abortion clinics. Regular medical doctors and specialists must be the decision makers. End of story.
Report thisBy ardee, October 31, 2009 at 10:46 am #
Actually, NO insurance should pay for an abortion. A medical necessity (which health insurance was designed to pay for) is a sickness, an accident, the types of situations people can’t control. An abortion, on the other hand, is an ELECTIVE procedure, one that is used to “undo” a mistake that 2 humans carelessly allowed to happen.
Yet another in a long series of opinion posted as fact. The poster, in his (possibly) religious zeal to end abortive procedures fails miserable to consider the number of said procedures performed because the life of the woman was threatened, the lack of viability of the fetus, regarding such horrors as lacking brain stems and such.
Safe, legal and rare sounds right to me, and, if it sounds right to a majority of us, then it should be continued as the law of the land. If this poster does not care for abortion then she shouldnt have one. If she is a he then he has no right over the body of any woman.
Report thisBy amunaor, October 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm #
Legalize? YES!
But, let’s not allow the Wall Street Casinos to get their hands on this one also; where the material scientists, Monsanto etc., start pumping the plant with steroids to make it grow fa$ter: quantity, not quality.
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope
Report thisBy ridgerunner, October 30, 2009 at 10:00 am #
There is not a single politician in Washington who understands health care sufficiently to enact legislation affecting it. Besides, the term “health care” is far different from “health insurance”. The two are intertwined but are actually separate issues.
Health insurance was originally intended to help pay medical expenses. The key word is “HELP”. Over the years people evolved into thinking that their health insurance was an entitlement and that it should pay for anything remotely resembling “health care”. Example - there is so much discussion about whether federal funds should pay for abortions. Actually, NO insurance should pay for an abortion. A medical necessity (which health insurance was designed to pay for) is a sickness, an accident, the types of situations people can’t control. An abortion, on the other hand, is an ELECTIVE procedure, one that is used to “undo” a mistake that 2 humans carelessly allowed to happen.
Medical necessity versus personal desire. A very clear choice - health insurance should never pay for cosmetic surgery not medically necessary, abortions except where there are clear medical reasons, and other types of elective procedures.
Politicians will write a bill that they think will make their voters happy because they want to keep their jobs. What a farce.
Report thisBy Jim Groom, October 30, 2009 at 2:18 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
We will not have serious health care reform until we tackle the problem of smoking. Nearly, if not all, of the cost to have real health care reform instead of insurance reform would take place. The drain upon the system from smoking alone is alarming. This poison should be banned…period!
Yeah, I know there are those who will complain about freedom and etc. I feel I have an equal freedom to not have to pay for smokers bad and harmful habits. I lost both my father and step-father to this self infected death and I don’t wish that pain upon anyone else.
Am I wrong?
Report thisBy MarthaA, October 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm #
Here’s hoping it is good enough to pass and provide affordable medical care for all Americans, because there are so many who are in need of medical care.
Report thisBy the worm, October 29, 2009 at 6:21 pm #
Robust or not, a public option is a must in anything that calls itself ‘Health Care
Report thisReform’, and we’ve got it. Now, let’s get together and get the damned thing
passed. It’s time for the ‘robust’ supporters (I count myself among them) to say
“Okay. We got something we can grow; ‘let’s (pardon the Texas-ism)get ‘er done’.”
By ardee, October 29, 2009 at 5:58 pm #
I await a synopsis of this gigantic bill. At the risk of sounding pessimistic I paste this from the article:
For now, House Democrats do not have firm commitments from enough lawmakers to guarantee passage of their bill. But their aggressive schedule suggests they are confident they can round up the votes they need. Speaker Pelosi evidently fell well short of the votes needed for the “robust” public option.
A whip count, prepared Tuesday, shows that 47 House Democrats opposed that approach while 8 more were “leaning no.” That suggests that Ms. Pelosi had lined up, at most, 201 votes of the 218 she would probably need.
Bold is mine…..The passage of said bill means more long wrangling with the Senate version yet to appear. Democracy grinds exceedingly slow.
Report this