Historic: House passes health care reform, 220-215
For the first time in American history, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve a universal health insurance program. (TPM has an excellent description of what's actually in the bill.)
The vote was 220 in favor and 215 against (roll call). One Republican, Anh Cao (R-LA), joined 219 Democrats in voting for passage - including every Democratic member from Oregon. Here's the closing moments:
There was one distressing note. By a vote of 240 to 194 (roll call), the House approved the Stupak amendment, which would limit the rights of private individuals to purchase abortion coverage through private health insurance plans. (Learn more about the Stupak amendment at Reproductive Health Reality Watch.) At least none of Oregon's four Democratic members voted for that awful amendment. (Rep. Greg Walden, of course, voted for Stupak and against final passage.)
There's a lot of excellent coverage at Huffington Post.
|
November 8, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (76 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Nov 8, 2009 1:13:41 AM
There are aspects of this bill that are gold. 100% beautiful. There are also big problems with this bill. But I watched it on C-SPAN live and it did seem historic.
You know those giant snakes at the zoo that never move? This was like one of those but worse - this was a constipated snake coming to life long enough to take a massive crap.
Frankly, I was impressed.
Talking about trying later and fixing things after 2010...sure, keep trying but the big snake doesn't move that often.
It may be many years before it moves again.
Posted by: Stephen Amy | Nov 8, 2009 1:46:51 AM
I guess this legislation could be called "historic" in that the U.S. says it's attempting to get to universal coverage while continuing to mainly rely on for-profit insurance for primary care.
Ain't never been done before. And I don't think it will be, either. Seems to me that with new regulations that will inhibit profitability (no more pre-existing-condition denials, cap on out-of-pocket expenses paid by consumers), the private carriers will seek to maintain profitability by raising premiums (even more), which means that even with subsidies the individuals and families who make 150%-400% of the poverty level will still not be able to afford insurance.
Posted by: Calling in opposition | Nov 8, 2009 1:51:27 AM
Bill - I think you miss my point. If the Senate goes with the House, the prospects are that not only do Democrats lose the majority but parts of it get rolled back. If Democrats change course now they just might hang on and get a chance after 2010 to continue what they've started. I watched the debate too and what came to mind were several other momentous debates and votes from the last many decades and how this seemed like a disgusting caricature of those.
There was really something utterly disgusting as they cheered and Pelosi took credit for what actually isn't the kind of thing most mature adults would be making a big public deal of taking credit for --- making your snake analogy quite appropriate.
Posted by: Calling in opposition | Nov 8, 2009 1:56:35 AM
I agree with you too Stephen. There is little reason to thing what Democrats have given us here is going to do much except make matters far worse. Guaranteed issue despite per-existing conditions (which I support) is not going work without stringent price controls that aren't in this bill, or a genuine publicly owned option that has massive enrollment and therefore real buying power (which is what I support over an easily corrupted system of price controls).
Posted by: Not going to say | Nov 8, 2009 7:50:42 AM
At least our Democrats did something and it is historic however partisanly debatable. I feel pretty good about the rest of the process to come too. If more poor people can go see a Dr. and not just in the emergency room when this is done, then good on us USA. It's like the public/private university system in a way right? People should have a choice in the same way with healthcare.
Posted by: Calling in opposition | Nov 8, 2009 8:37:43 AM
Not going to say --- you apparently don't actually understand what the real import of the bill is. This bill doesn't provide any additional coverage. It only mandates that everybody buy insurance or pay a penalty. While there is going to be an exchange and subsidies, the costs are still going to be very unaffordable of that mandate. So people are either going to flout the law, or actually decrease their standard of living to bear this cost. Either way they are going to feel very real negative economic consequences. These are "subsidies" that many can't afford to use and that others will pay a high price to use.
(And be clear, here, this is not a Republican anti-reform argument. I am for a strong publicly-owned option or single national health insurance system which forces the industry out of the game entirely.)
The real import of this bill is to bring a windfall to the insurance industry and to bring some economic benefit to privileged whose insurance premiums had previously also subsidized the uninsured emergency room and pro-bono physician care. They will see some relief in upward price pressure on their premiums without a corresponding tax hit, despite claims of subsidies, because we are going to borrow to pay for those subsidies.
So your point is pitiful and somewhat obnoxious. In fact, it actually reads as a very elitist defense of what the privileged in Congress have passed here since your words and tone hardly convey a close identification and empathy with what this really will mean for working and poor people who have been victimized by the health insurance industry in this country. This bill embodies a cynical betrayal of the noble values our party once stood for, and the NW delegations, to a member economically quite well off, were right there taking the lead doing it.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Nov 8, 2009 8:45:06 AM
While Oregon Dems all supported the bill, Brian Baird from Vancouver voted no. His web statement is nonsensical. What is his story. Why is he a Democrat?
Posted by: James Williams | Nov 8, 2009 8:53:55 AM
The latest details on this case:
www.35energy.com
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 8, 2009 8:57:14 AM
ou remember Darcy Burner from the 2008 election against Reichert don't you Kari? How do you like what the people you work for have done? Cat got your tongue that you're just spinning here to hide from denouncing them on this post? They could have stopped it by voting down this version of the bill and kept working on it, but in the end all Blumenauer, DeFazio, Wu, and Shrader really cared about was the politics of winning.
What are we supposed to be denouncing here, exactly? That Stupak got in a bad amendment at the final hour? Yeah, it sucks. But there's a whole Senate debate, vote and conference cmte to deal with it. Untwist your knickers and stop being an ass.
And one big correction Kari, this is not a bill that provides universal health insurance in any honest meaning of that phrase (and the your little trick of using the term "approving" results in a statement which has no meaning, but you are just PR whore for these guys who specialty is creative lying). What is does is require virtually everybody to give their money to the private health insurance industry. Big difference and you continue to be overtly dishonest about that. Trying to wring some credit for Democrats out of this abomination is disgusting.
Its HUGELY better than what we have now and compared to that mess that Boehner tried to float earlier this week it's a triumph. It's not perfect, but bills this complex rarely are.
At this point, if the final bill has the essential elements of this bill, there is a fair chance Democrats will lose the House and the Senate in a populist backlash. Republicans probably will repeal the mandate and leave the Stupak amendment in place. They'll do it as part of some bill that Obama really will want. The battle moves to the Senate now where we will get another shot after 2010 at fixing health care right if the mandate is stripped out of this failed bill now.?
Oh for crying out loud, take your crocodile tears somewhere else. All this hand wringing and pretend concern for the Democratic majority is so transparent as to be laughable.
Posted by: dartagnan | Nov 8, 2009 9:10:09 AM
Greg Walden doesn't want government making health care decisions for us -- except when it comes to the decision to have an abortion. Consistency has never been the strong suit of the wingnuts.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2009 9:41:48 AM
Dennis Kucinich voted NO. Why he voted No. Considering the senate will very likely degrade a very limited house bill in conference there isn't really that much to cheer.
Posted by: Calling in opposition | Nov 8, 2009 9:58:12 AM
Its HUGELY better than what we have now and compared to that mess that Boehner tried to float earlier this week it's a triumph. It's not perfect, but bills this complex rarely are.
Carla, just continue to be you typical egotistical self, who simply has to say something, not matter how stupid it is, because you can't abide that the fact you are shown to be such a loser who defends the indefensible.
First, Darcy Burner is a hell a lot more credible talking about what is wrong with this bill and your dancing around proves that. Minimizing just how much of an attack this is on women's reproductive rights the electeds you're obviously desperate to defend in the elitist way you do undermines your own credibility.
Second, pathetically trying to justify this as good by contrasting it with what Boehner offered also demonstrates just how you don't have a credible argument or a principled position.
Third, rationalizing and excuse-making we still have the Senate, when in fact there is almost no chance the Senate will be more progressive than the House on the Stupak issue or the mandate issue shows just how uncredible you are.
Finally, by what measure is this better than what we have now? I actually don't see a lot of serious arguments out there from much more intelligent people than you make this case about this bill. The nit-wit blogosphere where anybody with an ego can make their name a domain by buying it doesn't cut it as serious argument. There are a lot of claims about guaranteed issue despite pre-existing conditions BUT that is going to come at such a high cost in premiums that the result is predicted to be people flouting the law or finding lower-cost alternatives that doesn't actually increase access to services.
Thanks Carla for providing us with yet another ugly example of the haughty, egotistical, dull-witted, trite pack of laughing hyenas who have chewed out the soul our party and made a mockery of anything progressive, principled, or even Democratic.
Posted by: Dave Porter | Nov 8, 2009 9:58:16 AM
This is progress. It's historic. It's not the final bill. The final bill will not be perfect either. There will be much more to do in the future on health care. But this is a very big step. And Democrats did it. Alone. Keep hope alive. This is the change I voted for.
Posted by: Tim Young | Nov 8, 2009 10:02:49 AM
@Calling in opposition,
You seem to know a lot about all this. I like many Americans don't understand all the complexities of the bill but welcome more "empathy...for working and poor people who have been victimized by the health insurance industry in this country."
Everything else you said at the end there was so inflammatory, it does not deserve an adult response.
Childish.
Posted by: Not goung to say | Nov 8, 2009 10:11:34 AM
Anyone else notice "Calling in opposition" trying a little divide and conquer here? That's a red operative trying to divide the blues I bet ya'. *yawn* So old school and frankly, played out.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 8, 2009 10:12:39 AM
Carla, just continue to be you typical egotistical self, who simply has to say something, not matter how stupid it is, because you can't abide that the fact you are shown to be such a loser who defends the indefensible.
Look in a mirror--it's like you're talking to yourself.
First, Darcy Burner is a hell a lot more credible talking about what is wrong with this bill and your dancing around proves that. Minimizing just how much of an attack this is on women's reproductive rights the electeds you're obviously desperate to defend in the elitist way you do undermines your own credibility.
Really? So when you talked with Darcy Burner about this bill, what did she say to you exactly? I actually spoke with her about it on the phone. So you'll forgive me if I continue to not take you especially seriously.
But it's cute how you come here and try anyway. :)
Second, pathetically trying to justify this as good by contrasting it with what Boehner offered also demonstrates just how you don't have a credible argument or a principled position.
Ahh..I see. So do you believe that what Boehner offered is superior to what passed the House yesterday? Is it further your contention that complex and extensive pieces of legislation that must get the votes of hundreds of individuals with competing interests won't have problems? Are you always willing to destroy good by insisting on perfect or is this merely a special case?
Third, rationalizing and excuse-making we still have the Senate, when in fact there is almost no chance the Senate will be more progressive than the House on the Stupak issue or the mandate issue shows just how uncredible you are.
Blah blah blah...yes, yes, I'm stupid and I have no credibility. You've made that abundantly clear. Do you have any material to bring to the table that's actually meaningful or is that the best you've got?
Posted by: Not going to say | Nov 8, 2009 10:15:58 AM
"Calling in opposition" = divide and conquer red operative, opposed to any healthcare reform at all, or just simply enthusiastically misguided and pompous?
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Nov 8, 2009 10:44:19 AM
Calling in Opposition,
I'm still not clear on one thing: Do you like the bill or not?
Posted by: Bob Tiernan | Nov 8, 2009 10:49:07 AM
Stephen Amy:
which means that even with subsidies the individuals and families who make 150%-400% of the poverty level will still not be able to afford insurance.
Bob T:
You mean (like it has for many years already) they
won't be able to afford the kind of insurance
the government allows. Do yoi really think
that we've had anything close to free enterprise
health care (with and without insurance in the
middle?). That would be like saying that a city
with a government-protected taxi-cab monopoly with
$10 minimum fares is free enterprise in action.
But then, I never expect progressives to know
anything about this.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 8, 2009 11:09:42 AM
One fun conclusion that we can all draw here is that (at the literal End of the Day) the iron willed and uncompromising Dennis Kucinich voted against the bill, while wobbly and insufficiently doctrinaire Dems like Kurt Schrader wound up supporting it, but only due to the diligence of our own heroic Keyboard Kommandos.
I guess congratulations are in order all around.
Posted by: Calling in opposition | Nov 8, 2009 11:13:29 AM
Not going to say = another typical pathetic, snarky NW moron who couldn't buy a clue if it was put in one of his/her hands and the money to pay for it was put in the other.
And Carla:
So do you believe that what Boehner offered is superior to what passed the House yesterday?
when you can't help yourself from saying patently ridiculous things like this because you really don't have any argument, we just see how all you can do is dig yourself into a deeper hole. That would be the hole of trying to rationalize how you and Kari and the rest got punked into being cheerleaders for what people with half a brain saw in the last several days and certainly the last 24 hours before the vote was quickly become a bad fraud of reform. And the cost now is defending this attack on women's reproductive rights and trying to argue that welfare for the health insurance industry (and requiring working people to pay for it) is somehow good for working and poor people.
Frankly, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Reich, Taylor Marsh (HuffPo), and even Ezra Klein have made the case over the last 72 hours why this is so bad for women and working and poor people, based on far stronger values and arguments (and I generally find Klein to be a typical 30-something mentally lightweight and twit.) I suppose, they are just "red operatives opposed to any healthcare reform at all", or "simply enthusiastically misguided and pompous?".
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 8, 2009 11:27:23 AM
Calling: Clearly you can't answer even the most basic questions on this bill--and other very basic questions from this thread.
These are not that tough: What did Darcy Burner say when you talked with her about this bill? Do do you believe that what Boehner offered is superior to what passed the House yesterday? Is it further your contention that complex and extensive pieces of legislation that must get the votes of hundreds of individuals with competing interests won't have problems? Are you always willing to destroy good by insisting on perfect or is this merely a special case?
Either bring some substance or continue to be laughed off this thread.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2009 12:02:20 PM
"Everything else you said at the end there was so inflammatory, it does not deserve an adult response. "
It does deserve one adult response. Blue Oregon, while not perfect (whatever that might be), has a lot going for it. How participants act will determine its future - up or down. The response, therefor, should be that name calling and other forms of personal attacks are not acceptable and will be ignored.
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 8, 2009 12:13:08 PM
Carla, it's beyond stupid to say "well, Boehner's bill would have been worse!" Boehner was never at issue, never part of the conversation. There are only 177 Republicans, remember? They should have been irrelevant to the entire discussion. The issue is that Democrats have their strongest majority in decades, and yet can do little to nothing with it.
When you say "Stupak got in a bad amendment," you act as if you believe it just happens, like oopsie! You do realize he only "got it in" because Pelosi caved to the Blue Dogs once again, just days after giving the bully treatment to Anthony Weiner? They told him, "If you give up the single payer vote we can get a clean bill, because then we can block ALL amendments." And then turned right around and granted Stupak his amendment, essentially taking a big dump on Weiner.
This bill is barely effective overall, and as it stands is 100% unpassable with the Stupak abomination in it. You simply cannot pass a bill proposing to advance health care in this country--and then take away a fundamental health care right for millions of women simply because they can't afford it. Maybe with a Med+5 you could make a better case for stomaching such an outrage, but not this weak sauce version.
Meanwhile, over in the Senate Democrats continue to fellate Joe Lieberman, who only lives to hold the center of attention they continue to grant him. Oh yeah, it's a heroic time for the Democratic Party and the nation. Right-o.
Posted by: Tim Young | Nov 8, 2009 12:14:16 PM
Mr. Bill Bodden,
Excellent adult response, and I stand corrected. "Calling in opposition" should be let known "name calling and other forms of personal attacks are not acceptable and will be ignored." :-)
I like how Carla says "Either bring some substance or continue to be laughed off this thread."
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 8, 2009 12:40:39 PM
Carla, it's beyond stupid to say "well, Boehner's bill would have been worse!"
If that were all I'd said, then yes, that would be stupid. It wasn't.
Go back and read the whole thing or at least bother to talk about my comments in context. Anything else is flat dishonest.
Posted by: Z | Nov 8, 2009 1:27:20 PM
So... My 20 something nieces and nephews will be forced to buy health insurance. Employment is down and underemployment is soaring, so they will most likely have to find individual insurance. My nephew will have all his needs covered - including viagra if he wants. But my nieces will not have reproductive needs covered, no basic pelvic exams, no contraception, no domestic violence screening. They will be allowed to purchase ADDITIONAL insurance to cover their basic needs. If the need for an abortion comes up it will impact the women, and no abortion will be covered except if they are going to die from the pregnancy or if they can prove they were raped.
So health care will cost more for the women and provide less. I thought democrats were supposed to have women's rights as a core value.
Posted by: Zoe Walmer | Nov 8, 2009 1:45:30 PM
I could be missing something, but it looks to me like the Stupak amendment didn't even gain support from opposition Democrats or Republicans. Prior to the vote CNN was reporting that there were 40 Democrats prepared to vote with the Republican caucus against the bill. At the end of the day, only one Democrat out of those 40 voted for it (39 still voted against) and only one Republican supported the bill.
Two votes gained in exchange for this attack on reproductive rights?
Considering Democrats only needed 218 voted to pass (and got 220 including those two swung by the Stupak amendment), it looks like Pelosi let this one pass for no reason.
I agree that this bill isn't perfect, but it's a huge step forward. As a college student low on funds and high on medical needs, I look forward to the speedy passage of health care reform, but I am solidly disappointing with Pelosi's end game on this one.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2009 1:52:03 PM
"So... My 20 something nieces and nephews will be forced to buy health insurance. "
We are all forced to buy something for the supposed benefit of the nation. Most of these payments are called taxes that Justice Holmes said were what we pay for a civilized society. That isn't quite right when we have to pay taxes to support a bloated military for expansion of empire or pay people in Congress to indulge in a life of corruption and hypocrisy. But as another old saying has it, a nation gets the kind of government it deserves. Some of us may believe we deserve better, but overall this latter saying seems to be perfectly valid. As for buying insurance for health care through a government option, most people would surely agree that could be much better than buying drones, bombs and depleted uranium to destroy other societies.
Posted by: LT | Nov 8, 2009 1:53:08 PM
Pat, I love your sarcasm.
"One fun conclusion that we can all draw here is that (at the literal End of the Day) the iron willed and uncompromising Dennis Kucinich voted against the bill, while wobbly and insufficiently doctrinaire Dems like Kurt Schrader wound up supporting it, but only due to the diligence of our own heroic Keyboard Kommandos."
Posted by: Z | Nov 8, 2009 1:59:39 PM
"As for buying insurance for health care through a government option, most people would surely agree that could be much better than buying drones, bombs and depleted uranium to destroy other societies."
Huh? Was this the choice?
And it is not correct to equate paying taxes to being forced to purchase for-wall-street-profit insurance, or buy into a public option where the basic needs of a portion of the population are not covered.
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 8, 2009 2:06:44 PM
"If that were all I'd said, then yes, that would be stupid. It wasn't."
That's about all you said about it in that context, in fact--that compared to Boehner, it's a good bill. Which is not a good argument at all, and in fact is pretty insulting. Sort of like, "we're taking away your pension, but hey--we could be cutting your pay instead! Be happy!"
Posted by: Sugar and Spice | Nov 8, 2009 2:08:03 PM
You Democrats are so wonderful. You really care about women and children, peace and justice, health care and wars/occupations. I want to have your babies.
In a comprehensive executive summary at the Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) website, Kip Sullivan, JD writes: "Both the Senate and House versions of the proposed ‘public option' require that corporations with expertise in health insurance administer the option." Sullivan believes this is very bad news for the public.
He warns that private sector firms will likely play a role "that closely resembles the role that defense contractors play in the production of weapons for the Pentagon. Just as Northrop Grumman carries out all tasks necessary to create a fighter plane, so private corporations (not public employees) will carry out all tasks necessary to create the ‘option' health insurance programs." This function, he says, "is obviously very different from, and more significant than, merely processing claims."
The options in the current Senate and House bills, writes Sullivan, "will not resemble the traditional Medicare program but will in fact consist of numerous insurance programs (or plans) functioning at the level of individual insurance markets, that is, at the level of states and regions within states. Once you understand this, you begin to grasp what it means to say that private corporations will ‘administer' the option program. You begin to comprehend that the multiple local option programs might actually be owned by, or administered by privately owned corporations, possibly health insurance companies."
(Public Option is Just Another Private Party – and We’re Not Invited, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/06-7)
Posted by: Not Nancy Pelosi | Nov 8, 2009 2:52:07 PM
Get past the total lack of self awareness "Calling" displays when calling someone else immature or a mental lightweight, and you might notice that he is totlally backward on the political implications of passing this bill (not to mention on most of his substantive critiques).
Last November Americans elected Barack Obama and strengthened Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Largely on the promise to do something about healthcare. Passing a bill will not endanger these majorities. Not passing one will.
I can take ideological idiocy. I can take substantive idiocy. But idiocy on political matters really gets me.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 8, 2009 3:04:08 PM
CIO called me names - "you are just PR whore" - and then asked: " So which client are you going to talk up for and against now: Wyden who is for a mandate and or Merkley who is against?"
Same thing I've always done: tell you what I think. I've had many clients disagree with each other on specific issues; AFL-CIO, Oregon Business Association, etc. I'm not authorized to speak on behalf of my clients, and I don't.
BTW, I support an individual mandate.
Posted by: RyanLeo | Nov 8, 2009 3:07:58 PM
I am sure that this list of US Senators would not vote for cloture on this version of health care reform:
Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas)
Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut)
Tom Carper (D-Delaware)
Bill Nelson (D-Florida)
Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana)
Max Baucus (D-Montana)
Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska)
Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota)
Remember, you need 60 votes out of the US Senate's 100 members to bring cloture on debate.
I don't see this version ever reaching 55 votes.
Posted by: RyanLeo | Nov 8, 2009 3:10:56 PM
Out of that list, Mary Landrieu is the most conservative. Look her up.
Does anyone with a better understanding know why Mary Landrieu has flown completely under the radar, while Lieberman has been in the magnifying glass of the media?
She is one of the, if not the most conservative Democrat in the US Senate.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2009 3:55:39 PM
"And it is not correct to equate paying taxes to being forced to purchase for-wall-street-profit insurance, or buy into a public option where the basic needs of a portion of the population are not covered."
In other words, forget the limited progress in this bill and deny coverage to the relatively few the house bill would help. I'm with you completely on opposing for-profit insurance plans, but the government could and should do something half-decent like a properly funded version of Medicare or an extension thereof.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 8, 2009 4:03:12 PM
That's about all you said about it in that context, in fact--that compared to Boehner, it's a good bill. Which is not a good argument at all, and in fact is pretty insulting. Sort of like, "we're taking away your pension, but hey--we could be cutting your pay instead! Be happy!"
Except for the part where I said it's hugely better than what we have now and that I spent time talking with Darcy Burner about it.
Frankly, I trust Darcy's opinion on this bill way more than I trust yours. Hers: It's not perfect but it's considerably better than what we have now.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Nov 8, 2009 4:09:20 PM
you guys do know it's going to be about 4 years before this even takes effect, however the final bill reads? which means it's going to be modified numerous times even after passage. the public options & exchange(s) will set up rules, Congress will modify things, etc. which means that all the House did yesterday was move the process forward. we could all hope that nothing but an awesome "progressive" bill gets passed and that anything less gets voted down by "our" folks. cuz that sort of strategy works so well.
Posted by: Z | Nov 8, 2009 4:22:55 PM
bill, "In other words, forget the limited progress in this bill and deny coverage to the relatively few the house bill would help" where do you get that I said THAT??
I am extremely disappointed with democrats. We voted in huge majorities. They've done more damage to 'choice' than republicans have, and now to not cover contraception or pelvic exams for women? The bill is so flawed it might be best to just start over. If health insurance costs just keep rising and people are mandated to buy into insurance, and women's basic reproductive health not covered, then the democrats will not be looked on favorably at the polls.
Posted by: Bill McDonald | Nov 8, 2009 5:28:50 PM
t.a.,
It's my understanding that parts of the bill like the pre-existing conditions protection would begin right away while other parts like the exchanges would start in 2013.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2009 5:44:42 PM
"I am extremely disappointed with democrats."
I believe you mean the Democrats. Big difference. I gave up on the Democratic Party a long time ago; although, I respect a few of its members and people in Congress. So, I'm not disappointed. That comes from expecting them to do a good job and being let down when it is business as usual.
"The bill is so flawed it might be best to just start over."
I wouldn't put up much of an argument with you on this, but I lean towards taking any improvement, no matter how slight, to help some people even if others are ignored. But keep pushing for more.
To be fair, it is not only Democrats. The Republicans are just as bad, if not worse.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Nov 8, 2009 6:39:09 PM
I think I'll be blowing a kiss to Brian Baird every time I cross the bridge to work in Vankyville, and certainly congratulating my Clark County-resident coworkers for having such a fine species of Demo-RAT as their representative.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Nov 8, 2009 7:50:02 PM
History will record that the Democratic Party pissed away this historic opportunity. Last night I felt shame and disappointment about what might have been.
We (I haven't changed my affiliation yet) have become the Whig party of the late 1840s-early 1850s, unable to appease irreconcilable parts of themselves. Our officeholders (Kari's clients) are convinced they need to remain in the good graces of insurance companies and banks to stay viable. Large portions of their base feel strongly that insurance companies, banks, and corporations in general have entirely too much power in America and have to be brought to heel.
If, in the wake of Obama's victory and Bush's handing him the Great Recession, Obama would have simply said we can only afford the obvious answer, single payer, I am convinced America would have rallied around him. But we have all found out that is not who we elected and this is not our party.
Now we're going to kill another few thousands in Afghanistan, throw a trillion to the banks and insurance companies from the middle class, and crush the remaining embers of the union movement by backing away from card check. No Republican could have done this to us. Only a weak-tea Democratic (read: late stage collapse Whig) administration that has agreed to stand for little, and to fight for that little with Fox News.
America will always wonder what would have happened if we would have fought for what we said we believed in. Now it's over.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 8, 2009 8:15:07 PM
"The bill is so flawed it might be best to just start over."
By the time the insurance corporation agents in the senate degrade what is in the house bill, throwing "reform" out and starting over may be the way to go. Along with throwing out the people in Congress who will have betrayed the people.
Posted by: Paul Cox | Nov 8, 2009 9:10:39 PM
Congratulations! Now you can work full time on killing, er, passing Measure 66. Really wish that was Measure 69, the way you blow it's horn!
I said right here, a week ago or so, that the religious right control the US, not liberals. Here's proof. Imagine a conservative cause like a flag burning bill. What are the odds that some wilderness protection would be tacked on? Impossible, eh? Here's something just as near and dear to liberals' hearts, and it contains a pro-life rider. We are always present. If you want to escape that, move to France.
Wake up and acknowledge your masters! Then you won't be surprised when health care isn't different in 5 years. This is "plan b". Let a feckless Dem Congress pass it, then make damned sure it don't work. The idea will be discredited for ever. And making this not work will be easy. Meanwhile, we've kept you busy and off foreign policy, haven't we?
One more sticky issue, then an international crisis. Or an assassination attempt. Not suggesting, but contoversial Presidents are more often targets. Hope and change is going to look like Old Glory after the storm, in the next Presidential cycle!
Posted by: Paul C o x | Nov 8, 2009 9:13:53 PM
Congratulations! Now you can work full time on killing, er, passing Measure 66. Really wish that was Measure 69, the way you blow it's horn!
I said right here, a week ago or so, that the religious right control the US, not liberals. Here's proof. Imagine a conservative cause like a flag burning bill. What are the odds that some wilderness protection would be tacked on? Impossible, eh? Here's something just as near and dear to liberals' hearts, and it contains a pro-life rider. We are always present. If you want to escape that, move to France.
Wake up and acknowledge your masters! Then you won't be surprised when health care isn't different in 5 years. This is "plan b". Let a feckless Dem Congress pass it, then make damned sure it don't work. The idea will be discredited for ever. And making this not work will be easy. Meanwhile, we've kept you busy and off foreign policy, haven't we?
One more sticky issue, then an international crisis. Or an assassination attempt. Not suggesting, but contoversial Presidents are more often targets. Hope and change is going to look like Old Glory after the storm, in the next Presidential cycle!
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Calling in opposition | Nov 8, 2009 12:50:28 AM
This from Raw Story:
You remember Darcy Burner from the 2008 election against Reichert don't you Kari? How do you like what the people you work for have done? Cat got your tongue that you're just spinning here to hide from denouncing them on this post? They could have stopped it by voting down this version of the bill and kept working on it, but in the end all Blumenauer, DeFazio, Wu, and Shrader really cared about was the politics of winning.
And one big correction Kari, this is not a bill that provides universal health insurance in any honest meaning of that phrase (and the your little trick of using the term "approving" results in a statement which has no meaning, but you are just PR whore for these guys who specialty is creative lying). What is does is require virtually everybody to give their money to the private health insurance industry. Big difference and you continue to be overtly dishonest about that. Trying to wring some credit for Democrats out of this abomination is disgusting.
At this point, if the final bill has the essential elements of this bill, there is a fair chance Democrats will lose the House and the Senate in a populist backlash. Republicans probably will repeal the mandate and leave the Stupak amendment in place. They'll do it as part of some bill that Obama really will want. The battle moves to the Senate now where we will get another shot after 2010 at fixing health care right if the mandate is stripped out of this failed bill now.
And by the way Kari, the last I checked two weeks ago Merkley was against the mandate. So which client are you going to talk up for and against now: Wyden who is for a mandate and or Merkley who is against?