The health reform plan that
passed the House last night is not perfect; in particular, it has
one huge mistake I’m hoping will not make it through the conference committee. But it’s never going to be perfect, and I really want to emphasize how incredible it is that we’ve finally gotten health care reform through even one branch of Congress.
Americans have been grappling with how to provide universal health care for about 100 years, starting with Theodore Roosevelt. And in those 100 years, we’ve never been closer than we are right now. We are going to make history, and we are going to make it sooner rather than later.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29617We
Technically, "you" are not "halfway" to history. The Senate needs to pass (and write) its version of the bill. Then the bill has to go to conference committee, and then each body needs to pass it again. Technically you are 25%.
The Stupak amendment will be key. There were many Dems (more than just 3) who voted in favor of the passage of the bill last night because the Stupak amendment passed. There were 240 aye votes for the amendment, 176 of which (if I remember correctly) came from the Republican side of the aisle. That leaves 64 Democrats who supported the amendment. Of those 64 Democrats, I don't know how they broke in terms of passage of the bill, but the likelihood is that at least 3 would have voted against the bill had the amendment failed.
The Dems would do themselves great aid in keeping the Stupak amendment in conference committee. Otherwise it will be a struggle to get final passage in the House. But you have to get there first, and 60 votes is going to be a nailbiter on initial passage in the Senate.
I certainly hope that the Stupak amendment — which garned significantly more support than the House health reform bill itself — isn't just thrown aside in conference like a minor detail. It was obviously important to 55% of Congresspeople and had bipartisan support.
With that said, I'll be interested to see what Collins, Snowe, Nelson, Conrad, and Bayh come up with on the Senate side. I'd like to see this bill include a stronger element of malpractice reform, some fundamental payment reform (not just payment cuts — they are very different), and more decoupling of the insurance system and employers. Do we really want to cement into public policy the employer-based health coverage system? Seems like that is perpetuating the problem, not creating a solution.
As a moderate, it is exciting to see something moving that can be eventually molded into law. It has warts, some of which are massive, but the system we have right now aint working. If I had written the bill, would it look like this? Not a chance. Most of us could probably say the same thing.
Part 2 to come….
@ DtM
"I certainly hope that the Stupak amendment — which garned significantly more support than the House health reform bill itself — isn't just thrown aside in conference like a minor detail."
I thought, like the majority of Americans, you were pro-choice. At least that's what you have said on multiple occasions.
You have also said that you think representatives should represent their constituents. Since a majority of Americans are pro-choice, shouldn't they jettison Stupak, definately?
I personally am pro-choice. Let's not confuse personal rights with what our taxpayers should be asked to fund. Besides, my comment is more on how I desire politics to work.
If a 220-215 vote on health reform is "the will of the people", than a 240-194 amendment most certainly is the will of the people. I'd hate for something that is so important to many to be redlined in a committee.
Part 2.. While on a national level health reform is needed, and you could argue that this is one way to get there, this bill is a freakin disaster for our state. I hope Franken and Klubacher remember that they work for us, not Harry Reid, and the deal is closed on this one. We'll see in coming weeks whose interests they have placed first.
The tax on medical device makers — it amounts to $20B - $40B depending on which version was passed last night (haven't seen alot of details) — will affect MInnesota proportionately more than any other state in the union. We have the highest concentration of medical device employees in the nation. Places like Israel and Dubai will become hotbeds for affordable R&D that is currently performed in Minnesota by Minnesotans. This will hurt employees at Medtronic, Guidant, Boston Scientific, 3M, AMS, Augistine Medical, Cargill Health, CIMA, DaVita, Harbinger, or the dozens of other innovative medical device companies that offer good jobs to Minnesotans. Don't forget about banks, equity firms, law firms, and staffing firms that are in business because of our medical device industry, or the R&D collaboration opportunities it provides to the U of M.
Dan-
This is making the best possible system working within the employer based system. If Republicans had given bipartisan cover to Ron Wyden's bill to move away from an employer based system we could have gotten rid of it. But they only cosponsored it and when asked if they'd vote for it hedged or said no. There was no way to do it.
On medtec. The industry offered 15 billion over ten years. The House passed 20 billion over ten years. Not much of a difference. It won't hurt Minnesota.
In the coverage of the Stupak amendment, I didn't see any waver for women who've been raped or pregnant by incest or whose lives are in danger. Did I miss something or was that necessary waver not included?
Richard,
The problem with being anti-abortion is that there can be zero room for a waiver. If you believe that abortion is killing a human life, then how can you possibly say it is okay to kill some "people" but not others? On the other hand, if you allow for a waiver, then you are admitting that a zygote is not really a person yet, so then all abortions should be legal.
At least regarding the "rape/incest" portion of the waiver, most abortion-right-supporters I know regard having that waiver as worse than not having one, because 1) the waiver's unlikely to actually be given out an enable a woman to get an abortion, 2) the waiver makes restrictions on the basic abortion right seem tolerable and thus more likely to be passed, and 3) it'll make it even harder to give rape victims the treatment they need and rapists the punishment they deserve.
3's the big problem with the whole "waiver" idea. A woman wants the waiver, ok, how's she get it? Hearings to prove she was raped? Ah, that would be a hearing in the same court system where slandering a woman by calling her a liar who's making it up and/or wanted it is a routine - and routinely successful - defense to rape charges? Oh, and a court system that eats up time that keeps the pregnancy going, adding to the difficulty (and, under Roe/Casey/Carhart, legal prohibitability) of performing the abortion each day? And it's a waiver that gives the impression of there being a "tangible benefit" to lying about rape, so that now rape victims can be dismissed with an "Oh, she's just making it up to try and get an abortion"?
Yeah, lot of good that waiver'll do. Assuming judges are willing to give them out to begin with.
This is one of the more fascinating policy initiatives I've seen in my lifetime from a pure politics standpoint. Pelosi was able to narrowly pass this bill after the amendment which enjoyed even broader support was passed. The Senate Finance Committee, meanwhile, passed a health coverage reform bill that is palatable to moderates like me. Harry Reid, then, ignores many key elements of that Finance Committee work and says he'll introduce something that is more liberal, including a Public Option. And here we are.
There is no doubt that the final bill will need to take a step toward the middle in order to garner Senate support. Will it include the Public Option? The Millionaire Tax? Abortion funding? Allow for state interpretation? We shall see.
Fascinating times.
Yes fascinating, poor women will be dying soon at the hands of backalley abortionists with coat hangers and bike wheel spokes. Meanwhile wealthy women will get a weekend "away" at the spa. I would definitely call that fascinating.
Your stereotypes and biases never cease to amaze me, Richard.
I simply believe the politics of this all is fascinating, as I said in my original post.
So, you don't believe poor women get abortions or you don't believe women will die as a result of not being able to pay for a safe abortion?