Markets

U.S. open in 0 hrs, 13 mins
10,344.84
34.92
 
0.34%
2,144.60
6.16
 
0.29%
1,095.63
4.14
 
0.38%
101.188
-0.2812
 
0.28%
5,278.62
87.94
 
1.69%
9,572.20
226.65
 
2.43%
22,113.15
291.65
 
1.34%
0.0084
 
0.56%
0.52
 
0.60%
1,195.40
14.30
 
1.21%
78.28
1.00
 
1.29%
Bookmark and Share

House Passes Health Care Overhaul

By DAVID ESPO
,
AP
posted: 23 DAYS 9 HOURS AGO
Text SizeAAA
WASHINGTON (Nov. 7) - In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.


A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.
"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.
In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.
Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

House Leaders Face Off on Bill:
Case for It | Case Against It

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.
A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed.'
From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."
The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.
Nearly unanimous in their opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.
United in opposition, minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.
"We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, 'this is making me sick,'" jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing "a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding" bill.
But with little doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer's town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting "death panels" to hasten the demise of senior citizens.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.
At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.
The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance.
To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.
The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear.
Democrats lined up a range of outside groups behind their legislation, none more important than the AARP, whose support promises political cover against the cuts to Medicare in next year's congressional elections.
The nation's drug companies generally support health care overhaul. And while the powerful insurance industry opposed the legislation, it did so quietly, and the result was that Republicans could not count on the type of advertising campaign that might have peeled away skittish Democrats in swing districts.
Over all, the bill envisioned the most sweeping set of changes to the health care system in more than a generation, and Democrats said it marked the culmination of a campaign that Harry Truman began when he sat in the White House 60 years ago.
Debate on the House floor had already begun when Obama strode into a closed-door meeting of the Democratic rank and file across the street from the Capitol to make a final personal appeal to them to pass his top domestic priority.
Later, in an appearance at the White House, he said he had told lawmakers, "to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America."
Participants also said Obama had referred to this week's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed. His remarks put in perspective that the hardships soldiers endure for the country are "what sacrifice really is," as opposed to "casting a vote that might lose an election for you," said Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J.
It appeared that a compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion had finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.
As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.
But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.
Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but pulled back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.
One, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., detailed numerous other benefits for women in the bill, including free medical preventive services and better prescription drug coverage under Medicare. "Women need health care reform," she concluded in remarks on the House floor.
A Republican alternative was rejected on a near party line vote of 258-176.
It relied heavily on loosening regulations on private insurers to reduce costs for those who currently have insurance, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. But congressional budget analysts said the plan would make no dent in the ranks of the uninsured, an assessment that highlighted the difference in priorities between the two political parties.
It was a theme of Obama's remarks to Democrats at midmorning.
The president said Democrats have a 70-year history of creating and defending programs like Social Security and Medicare, Andrews said afterward, adding Obama had said the day's vote "is going to define the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties for decades."
Associated Press writers Phil Elliott, Alan Fram and Erica Werner contributed to this report.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2009-11-07 06:57:58
COMMENTS ( 455 )
Page 1 of 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>
SeanLean
9:12AM Nov 14 2009 
Prez Obozo is so ill-equipped to be Commander-in-Chief it's like hiring a television announcer with a smooth voice to run a nuclear power plant. ....................................... It's only a matter of time before BOOM! ....
REPLY RATING
(0 RATINGS)
 
SEXY RAY
10:46AM Nov 8 2009 
A 1900 PAGE BILL CRAFTED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BY A HANDFUL OF DEMS THAT WILL COST UPWARDS OF 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS AND PASSED BY 5 VOTES THAT MAY OR MAYNOT DESTROY THE FINANCIAL FABRIC OF THE U.S. WE MUST ENSURE THAT ALL REPUBS AND INDEPENDENTS VOTE THESE DYSFUNCTIONAL JOKERS OUT IN 2010 THAT VOTED FOR THIS MONSTROSITY SO WE CAN RESCIND THIS MORONIC BILL!
REPLY RATING
(1 RATINGS)
 
Hiredshoe
6:02PM Nov 7 2009 
I just want to thank all you liberal democrats for F in over this country like it's never been F ed before
REPLY RATING
(1 RATINGS)
 
JUSTME053059
1:11PM Nov 7 2009 
Very very BIG mistake
REPLY RATING
(1 RATINGS)
 
JMalta54
5:56AM Nov 7 2009 
My decision against health care is not based a a single issue. There are many. I have issues with who is writing the legislation, the touting of the backing by the AMA ( only 17% of physicians are members) and AARP, both who are standing to benefit financially from the endorsement ( yes they sold out ), the process ( behind closed doors ) , the ability of the government to run such programs, the economic impact ( it has failed in Hawaii, California and Mass ) and the goal, which to more ideologic. There is no question health care needs to be fixed. Identify wastes and savings and possible regulation first. Do you really think the ONLY way to correct health care is add government option. Think about it. The President says there is over 500billion in Waste. Nancy P says the plan is only 800+ billion. So to find the 300 additional billion we need a complete overhaul? They are spending triilions. Fixing health care will eventuall save us money. Cannot find 300 billion? There are so much smoke and mirrors with this " fiscally responsible and transparent administration, it is sickening
REPLY RATING
(1 RATINGS)
 
Page 1 of 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY?
YOU'LL BE ASKED TO REGISTER OR SIGN IN BEFORE POSTING A COMMENT.
Make a Comment
Comment
 
Download the Daily Finance iPhone Application

Headlines From AOL Money & Finance Partners

CNBC
The Big Money
Smart Money
Kiplinger.com
The street

Visit Money & Finance for stock quotes, the web's best online portfolio manager and the latest business & financial news. Find out about every aspect of personal finance and money management, from finding the best mortgage rates and preventing identity theft to making money, saving money and investing money.