Health care reform bill passes U.S. House

[The Batman]

WASHINGTON (NBC) - History has been made in the U.S. House.

Democrats passed a landmark health care reform bill they're comparing to medicare and social security.

It's a huge victory for President Obama who wagered his political capital on getting the bill passed.

The bill covers 32 million uninsured Americans and costs nearly $1 trillion.

Both sides agreed it's historic.

"Every president of the last century has said this is necessary for a great nation to do," Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said.

"Just because it's historic doesn't mean it's good," Rep. Peter Roskam, R-IL, said.

The reform effort was meant to cover all Americans, but it leaves the nation bitterly divided and politically polarized.

Throngs of those for and against traveled to the capitol to vent their frustration one last time, and arriving lawmakers had to run a virtual gauntlet before the historic votes.

Inside the House, tempers occasionally boiled over.

In two hours of debate, both sides issued passionate appeals.

"The American people need health care and they need it now," Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, said.

"They don't want a 2,400 page bill riddled with back room deals," Rep. Wally Herger, R-CA, said.

The health care reform bill passed, now Washington has to find a way to make it work.

http://www.14wfie.com/global/story.asp?s=12179697

[Tiberius]

So....when does the revolution start?

[Antares]

So....when does the revolution start?

Hopefully before ALL the republicans decide to shoot themselves.


IM HAPPY, we are one of the last industrialized nations to get universal healthcare...well actually we don't have universal healthcare...we have near-universal healthcare...whatever. its progress and change, barack obama has finally accomplished something big. :)

[Tiberius]

Do you even realize what this is going to do to our economy and not to mention what it will do to our medical industry?

[CaptainObvious]

Do you even realize what this is going to do to our economy and not to mention what it will do to our medical industry?

It'll be awesome for the medical industry, they just got handed a massive expansion of their customer base.

As for the economy, it will be a definite improvement in the long run, as this is hopefully just one step towards the most efficient model of public healthcare provision, which is single payer. America already pays more per capita than almost any other country for worse aggregate healthcare outcomes. How is it that you think that's an acceptable state of affairs? For comparison, in Canada the amount saved on healthcare by corporations due to universal coverage ends up almost equating the effective tax rates faced by businesses with those in America. And our healthcare outcomes are better, and are provided at less cost.

Of course, the bill has many deficiencies. But it's a step - in some very important ways - in the right direction.

[Antares]

Do you even realize what this is going to do to our economy and not to mention what it will do to our medical industry?

I completely realize that it may help it.
This isn't universal healthcare chris.
This is giving 32 million people healthcare and making some new rules for the companies.

I personally think it is a great reform bill and will save a lot of lives for a very cheap price. I did some quick math...if there are about 138 million taxpayers in the US and the bill being 1 trillion, thats 7 dollars.

I think people lose more than 7 dollars in a year by dropping it or it getting eaten by the drier.

The money/debt thing isnt a factor in this.

[Tiberius]

I have 3 direct family members who are doctors in the medical industry, they all are fearing for their jobs now. It's going to severely reduce the quality of care in America because you'll have a lack of doctors and is now going to be paid by the U.S government. In addiction, I thought that we already went over the fact that when you factor out the higher homicide, motor vehicle and obesity related deaths to that of the average industrialized country, America actually has the highest life expectancy. We have, by far, the highest cancer survival rates of any nation, one of the highest heart disease survival rates, and when you measure the U.S to the same standards as other countries for infant mortality rates, we have one of the lowest. You might be interested to know that the U.S factors the death of any child from the moment it is born until it is 2 years old into our infant mortality rates whereas the overwhelming majority of the industrialized world only counts the death of an infant, on average, from the time that it is 5 days old(often times more) until it reaches the age of 2 into it's infant mortality rates. That, sir, if you don't realize is cheating and bullshit to inflate their shitty healthcare statistics. Like everything, you certainly get what you pay for and it's a good thing that Americans spend what we do on healthcare.I completely realize that it may help it.
This isn't universal healthcare chris.
This is giving 32 million people healthcare and making some new rules for the companies.

I personally think it is a great reform bill and will save a lot of lives for a very cheap price. I did some quick math...if there are about 138 million taxpayers in the US and the bill being 1 trillion, thats 7 dollars.

I think people lose more than 7 dollars in a year by dropping it or it getting eaten by the drier.

The money/debt thing isnt a factor in this.
John, you totally forget that we have a graduated tax system in the U.S so it doesn't equate to $7 per person. Also, you seem to forget that our Government's gross annual revenue is $2.19 trillion; we've already spent that and want to tack on another trillion dollars. America has a GDP of 15 trillion dollars and cannot afford this kind of spending. You think this is a game of monopoly and the money is just going to come from the banker sitting to your left, it's not. The American tax payer doesn't have it. We may be the richest country in the world, but the comes a point when even we can't afford it.

[CaptainObvious]

I have 3 direct family members who are doctors in the medical industry, they all are fearing for their jobs now.

Well with all due respect those family members are obviously not well versed in healthcare economics. There is absolutely no reason to think that this bill will endanger their jobs, and additionally no reason to believe the same about even a single payer system.

My family is full of doctors who practice under a single payer system (Canada). They do absolutely fine.

It's going to severely reduce the quality of care in America because you'll have a lack of doctors and is now going to be paid by the U.S government.

There are 2 contentions in this quote: that this bill will cause a doctor shortage, and that it will cause care to be provided by a single payer (the US government). The latter is just wrong, since all the bill does is mandate private coverage - something that's so blatantly obvious it's sort of depressing you mistake this for (what would definitely be superior) public provision of care.

The second is that it will reduce quality of care because of a doctor shortage. And that, I would like to see you somehow substantiate.


We have, by far, the highest cancer survival rates of any nation,

By far? That is absolutely wrong. America's cancer survival rates beat the average European rates - obviously I don't need to point out the number of less-developed countries included in aggregate European statistics - but are certainly not the highest in the world. Among others, Sweden has equal or better survival rates with its public, single-payer, two-tier system.

If you compare to Canada - which I wouldn't do with an intent to prove anything because as much as Canada's system is in some ways superior in its single payer structure it could be vastly improved by a more robust second tier of private care - you're talking about 3% and 4% survival rate differences, respectively, for women and men. And that's based on several years-old Canadian data, anyways; since survival rates rise over time, that small margin could have changed.

You might be interested to know that the U.S factors the death of any child from the moment it is born until it is 2 years old into our infant mortality rates whereas the overwhelming majority of the industrialized world only counts the death of an infant, on average, from the time that it is 5 days old(often times more) until it reaches the age of 2 into it's infant mortality rates. That, sir, if you don't realize is cheating and bullshit to inflate their shitty healthcare statistics.

You've been drinking some kind of Kool Aid. Most of the EU and other highly developed countries report the same or very similar definitions of infant mortality as America, and the CDC report on comparing infant mortality rates concluded that even small discrepancies - such as extremely premature babies - are highly unlikely to account for America's low international ranking on the issue.

Like everything, you certainly get what you pay for and it's a good thing that Americans spend what we do on healthcare.

One can get more without spending more. Efficiency is a very important goal, and it is one at which the current US system does extremely poorly.

[The Batman]

Also United States healthcare is very overpriced it's a business trying to make a profit just like everything else in america.

[Maverick]

Too late at night to debate right now but I will say that the majority of Americans opposed this bill and it should not have been passed based on that alone.

[Tiberius]

David, tomorrow I will debate you about the Cancer survival rates and the other topics since I wrote a 6 page paper on it two months ago. It's really late and I need a bit of time to get all of my crap together. Hope you come with your guns loaded too :)

[Antares]

I have 3 direct family members who are doctors in the medical industry, they all are fearing for their jobs now. It's going to severely reduce the quality of care in America because you'll have a lack of doctors and is now going to be paid by the U.S government. In addiction, I thought that we already went over the fact that when you factor out the higher homicide, motor vehicle and obesity related deaths to that of the average industrialized country, America actually has the highest life expectancy. We have, by far, the highest cancer survival rates of any nation, one of the highest heart disease survival rates, and when you measure the U.S to the same standards as other countries for infant mortality rates, we have one of the lowest. You might be interested to know that the U.S factors the death of any child from the moment it is born until it is 2 years old into our infant mortality rates whereas the overwhelming majority of the industrialized world only counts the death of an infant, on average, from the time that it is 5 days old(often times more) until it reaches the age of 2 into it's infant mortality rates. That, sir, if you don't realize is cheating and bullshit to inflate their shitty healthcare statistics. Like everything, you certainly get what you pay for and it's a good thing that Americans spend what we do on healthcare.
John, you totally forget that we have a graduated tax system in the U.S so it doesn't equate to $7 per person. Also, you seem to forget that our Government's gross annual revenue is $2.19 trillion; we've already spent that and want to tack on another trillion dollars. America has a GDP of 15 trillion dollars and cannot afford this kind of spending. You think this is a game of monopoly and the money is just going to come from the banker sitting to your left, it's not. The American tax payer doesn't have it. We may be the richest country in the world, but the comes a point when even we can't afford it.

Why are they fearing their jobs exactly?
Nothing will happen to them...this is INSURANCE reform, not complete healthcare reform. This is not universal coverage. Doctors won't be directly paid by the government.

Want to clarify one last time, this is NOT universal healthcare like people have been arguing about for the past year or so.

America is not healthy at all, therefore we do not have the highest life expectancy. Period. Thats with and without accidents and homicides whatever whatever.

And we may have the highest cancer rates and heart disease rates because we actually have all of those problems whereas when you go to any other country, the amount of people that get these complicated issues are probably less.

Honestly, you sound like a healthcare lobbyist right now. Tainted with some false beliefs such as we deserve to be paying thousands of dollars unnecessarily to get denied care if our disease costs too much. Thats shitty service and that is what this reform bill will help heal.

As for the tax system, you are right. It isn't actually 7 per person, I was using it as an illustration. We like to tax the really rich quite a bit so I undersatnd that.

Finally, you are right that we only collect 2 trillion dollars a year however, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter much since we have had a national debt since...1776, it will always exist, and it will never ever be paid off. Its on the brink of impossible. So while we do spend money, I think it is more improtant to save lives.

EDIT: Ant, I think most people were opposed because they were misinformed and really didn't know what was going on, which is valid grounds to be generally opposed to something, but we elect politicians for a reason. They get degrees for a reason, and this is something that will be beneficial to the people rather than something that will benefit themselves.

[Perseus]

Man, shit gonna hit the fan with Glenn Beck. :P

I don't know much about the bill that was just passed, but I do semi-agree with it, because everyone should have healthcare.

[Blood]

Fuck Obama to hell.

[Antares]

Fuck Obama to hell.

Nice reply...

[Blood]

Nice reply...


^_^.

[Antares]

I assume you didn't pick up on my extremely sarcastic tone...

[CaptainObvious]

Too late at night to debate right now but I will say that the majority of Americans opposed this bill and it should not have been passed based on that alone.

Yet the majority of Americans support a public option. So should that not have been the route taken, by your logic?

People mostly tend to appeal to the majority opinion when it agrees with theirs, I've noticed.

[Scarface]

Fuck Obama to hell.

Jess your amazing girl. Lovely. To be on topic I hope Obama has something to back this up and make sure it doesn't go to hell in a hand basket and screw everything up as bush did

[Blood]

Why thank you Ronnie <333 (If that was sarcasm, i so didnt catch it lol)

[Antares]

Yea, it was complete sarcasm

Because like I said, it is stupid for people to say that without legit reasons

[Omgthatsme]

Go democrats! Go Obama!

[INFERNO]

I'm kind of in support but before I say my view, after talking with some friends they told me there's some stuff on the bill not related to health care. So, I looked about and turns out they're right, there's some stuff neatly packed into it not related to health care, such as changing how student loans are given (will now be by the government not by private banks). I'm not planning to look through all 3,000+ pages of it but this makes me wonder if there are other things neatly tucked in there not related to health care.

Here is a link regarding that: CLICK HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L0JX20100322)

Anyways, with that said and done, I still think it's a good bill to be passed. There's an issue about those who are against abortion having to pay for it anyways but I believe there was an Executive Order added in (mind you it is just an Executive Order). There are plenty of disadvantages with this but I think the pros outweigh the cons here.

[Kahn]

Ten different states have filed law suit against the bill. Hmm? WUT?!

[CaptainObvious]

Ten different states have filed law suit against the bill. Hmm? WUT?!

It's a political tactic. With recent SC decisions regarding the commerce clause, there is no chance the lawsuit will be successful.

[Antares]

I'm kind of in support but before I say my view, after talking with some friends they told me there's some stuff on the bill not related to health care. So, I looked about and turns out they're right, there's some stuff neatly packed into it not related to health care, such as changing how student loans are given (will now be by the government not by private banks). I'm not planning to look through all 3,000+ pages of it but this makes me wonder if there are other things neatly tucked in there not related to health care.

Here is a link regarding that: CLICK HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L0JX20100322)

Anyways, with that said and done, I still think it's a good bill to be passed. There's an issue about those who are against abortion having to pay for it anyways but I believe there was an Executive Order added in (mind you it is just an Executive Order). There are plenty of disadvantages with this but I think the pros outweigh the cons here.

There are always things that the politicans (from both sides) put into the bill. Pork barrel politics at its best. It is probably literally in every bill that goes through congress, things that are completely unrelated.
And the abortion thing is completely gone. That is what got the final votes to secure it's passage.

[Disconected]

....

[dontknow2010]

So....when does the revolution start?

Not a lot of people know because not a lot of people have read the 2000+ pages of the bill.

Wonder how many democrat seats are going to be lost in the elections because they didn't listen to what their constituents wanted...

I have a feeling Obama will be a one term president.

[Antares]

Not a lot of people know because not a lot of people have read the 2000+ pages of the bill.


The bill is not 2000 pages.
Stop exaggerating.

The majority of people voted for change, so thats what they are getting.

[quartermaster]

It's a political tactic. With recent SC decisions regarding the commerce clause, there is no chance the lawsuit will be successful.

I agree this is nothing more than a political tactic, however, this will be of no consequence to the bill not because of the commerce clause, but because the the states are not afflicted parties, thus they are not in the position to challenge the constitutionality (unless they take the nullification route) and because the tenth amendment (which they reference) has been all but ignored by the Supreme Court in recent years.

That said, even under the commerce clause, the constitutionality of this bill is in question, because though Congress may regulate commerce between the states, the commerce clause has never been established to allow the federal government to force people to engage in inter-state commerce. It is an extreme stretch to force someone to buy a commodity they may not want or need under the pretext of inter-state commerce (even given the past precedents), as, again, the commerce clause does not give the federal government the right to make anyone actually engage in inter-state commerce.

[CaptainObvious]

I agree this is nothing more than a political tactic, however, this will be of no consequence to the bill not because of the commerce clause, but because the the states are not afflicted parties, thus they are not in the position to challenge the constitutionality (unless they take the nullification route) and because the tenth amendment (which they reference) has been all but ignored by the Supreme Court in recent years.

That said, even under the commerce clause, the constitutionality of this bill is in question, because though Congress may regulate commerce between the states, the commerce clause has never been established to allow the federal government to force people to engage in inter-state commerce. It is an extreme stretch to force someone to buy a commodity they may not want or need under the pretext of inter-state commerce (even given the past precedents), as, again, the commerce clause does not give the federal government the right to make anyone actually engage in inter-state commerce.

Commerce clause interpretations of recent years like Gonzales v. Raich establish federal government authority to prohibit engagement in commerce within a state based upon its effect on interstate commerce; I think it's extremely likely that similar reasoning would be persuasive in this case - of course, in the opposite direction - based upon recent decisions.

Although you are indeed correct that such question might not even arise given your valid point about the state attorneys general lacking the standing to challenge the law.

[BIBoii15]

Do you even realize what this is going to do to our economy and not to mention what it will do to our medical industry?

Yes I kno that all americans want health insurance but they don't want it this way!!! And yes I kno wat this will do to our economy... it will bring the Richest, most Powerful Nation into Bankruptcy!!! Do you want that? I don't

[dontknow2010]

Yes I kno that all americans want health insurance but they don't want it this way!!! And yes I kno wat this will do to our economy... it will bring the Richest, most Powerful Nation into Bankruptcy!!! Do you want that? I don't

I totally agree with you. Welcome to the United States of China.

[Perseus]

Yes I kno that all americans want health insurance but they don't want it this way!!! And yes I kno wat this will do to our economy... it will bring the Richest, most Powerful Nation into Bankruptcy!!! Do you want that? I don't

We are not the richest country. It's either Sweden or some other Europen country, possibly one of the Scandanavian ones.

[Tiberius]

We are not the richest country. It's either Sweden or some other Europen country, possibly one of the Scandanavian ones.

The bill is not 2000 pages.
Stop exaggerating.

The majority of people voted for change, so thats what they are getting.

Are the two of you smoking something? If you are, I sure want to try it since it seems to completely erase reality.

The health care bill was 2,324 pages long, John. Stop being ignorant and google it or look on the Congress' web site.

Jake, America has the LARGEST GDP of any autonomous country in the world. Our GDP is $14.27 trillion est. for 2009 with Japan as the next closest country at $5.049 trillion est. for 2009. Now Sweden happens to have a GDP of $397.7 billion est. for 2009. You know how that's so much more than $14.27 trillion....

[quartermaster]

Commerce clause interpretations of recent years like Gonzales v. Raich establish federal government authority to prohibit engagement in commerce within a state based upon its effect on interstate commerce; I think it's extremely likely that similar reasoning would be persuasive in this case - of course, in the opposite direction - based upon recent decisions.


Prohibiting engagement in interstate commerce is one thing, however, forcing one to actual engage, is entirely something else. Now we are dealing with the use of coercion and force; even different than taxes, one is being forced to directly buy a commodity or a good, and even then, a non-public good. If this is ruled constitutional (when this is inevitably challenged), this is, to be sure, a most unsettling precedent in the use of the commerce clause. Again, prohibiting entrance is one thing, but forcing entrance is a different playing field; this is a force exerted on people just for living, not for something they have a choice in the matter on (like owning a vehicle, for instance).

Quite simply, even given the previous Supreme Court cases, there is absolutely no precedent for this, which is why I ultimately believe this bill has a good chance of being ruled unconstitutional.

[CaptainObvious]

Prohibiting engagement in interstate commerce is one thing, however, forcing one to actual engage, is entirely something else. Now we are dealing with the use of coercion and force;

Whereas prohibition is not the use of coercion and force? We are not forcing a person to not engage in commerce by prohibiting it? I'm afraid I don't see how one is coercion and the other not.

Quite simply, even given the previous Supreme Court cases, there is absolutely no precedent for this, which is why I ultimately believe this bill has a good chance of being ruled unconstitutional.

Well, let's agree to disagree on that. I would be wildly surprised if the SC ruled the bill unconstitutional. In an environment of different precedents, maybe, but we are where we are.

[Perseus]

Are the two of you smoking something? If you are, I sure want to try it since it seems to completely erase reality.



Jake, America has the LARGEST GDP of any autonomous country in the world. Our GDP is $14.27 trillion est. for 2009 with Japan as the next closest country at $5.049 trillion est. for 2009. Now Sweden happens to have a GDP of $397.7 billion est. for 2009. You know how that's so much more than $14.27 trillion....

Are you sure about that because I am fairly sure America is not the richest country. If it is, I've been lied to.

[Tiberius]

You've been lied to.
I have facts and have shown them to you, that's more than the other people I bet...

[The Batman]

If this is the richest nation what's the problem with paying for healthcare?

[Antares]

Technically it has the highest GDP of any country in the world...so if you want to use GDP as a measure of wealth, we are number one but there are other countries that top the list of...average income per person or whatever else.

As to Chris, last time I read and heard, the bill was 1,000 pages (and that was a news website and broadcast).

However, I just googled it again to make sure and the house bill was http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28904.html


so its nearly 2,000 pages but there have been conflicting reports obviously.
No ignorance on this end but I am sure you have a supply of something me to smoke

[Tiberius]

John, that article was from 10/29/09.....

[quartermaster]

Whereas prohibition is not the use of coercion and force? We are not forcing a person to not engage in commerce by prohibiting it? I'm afraid I don't see how one is coercion and the other not.


To be sure, all government action is, by definition, inherently coercive. In this sense, I was meaning government action was directly coercive, as it forces one to act, whereas in prohibition, the government prevents an action from taking place. I see a fundamental difference between the two as one bars entrance, but another directly forces entrance; one punishes human action and the other punishes human living. There is a penalty for inaction, a punishment for a victimless crime (though I concede the world has an obsession with punishing victimless crimes), a direct exertion of force upon those who would do nothing, neither harm nor good. Again, I see there to be a fundamental difference between these two forms of government coercion that ultimately makes this current bill into something the Supreme Court cannot allow stand; of course, I have been many a time surprised before.

[INFERNO]

If this is the richest nation what's the problem with paying for healthcare?

Ignoring whether it is or isn't the wealthiest, just because it has a huge pile of money, that does not mean it's infinitely rich. It's a wealthy country for certain but paying for health care isn't simply paying for a $0.02 meal, it's a hefty price. It's like for a billionaire, he/she can buy a $5 million house and be fine financially but buying 1.5 million houses each worth $5 million, that the billionaire cannot do despite being filthy rich. Same applies here, there's limits as to what people and countries can afford.