219-212. After 60 years.
And the BEST thing, now Rush Limbaugh can move to Costa Rica! (and get public health care treatment for his various addictions).
(Post Script: I'm adding to the above sentiment two editorials, both from the New York Times, which eloquently explain why I am thankful this passed. As both point out, this is less about substance, than mission and the meaning behind overcoming the vile and incipid conduct of the opposition. They threw everything, ration, and especially irrational, at this, and yet they failed. This was a stinging defeat, and hopefully, it will mean better days ahead.)
The first is "Fear Strikes Out" - by Paul Krugman - perhaps the finest editorialist in the country. This is a re-use of a title of a book (and movie) about the life of Jimmy Piersall - a baseball player who battled his father and his own demons of depression and insecurity - doubtless Krugman chose this title with a keen eye on irony.
The second is "An Absence of Class" by Robert Herbert - also of the Times, which keenly scythes through the BS of the right and exposes quite well the falacy and deception used time and again by those who oppose actual discourse.
Last night, I felt a faint whisp of motion in what little hair I have left and feared maybe it was a spider. Then I realized it was the sky falling...
ReplyDeleteHmmm...On the other hand, maybe it was just a breath of fresh air.
The bill may not be perfect but it's a start...and the stars were still shining this morning.
I'm not sure, I think the sky really DID fall. I think Obama was born on Mars, the Census is s communist (err. I mean socialist) plot, and it's all Michelle Bachmann's fault. Isn't she part of the government too?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, yes, it's certainly a breath of fresh air.
Dear Leslie, you were responsible for my nearly needing health care this morning - as I read your comment, I laughed out loud as I tried to swallow, and nearly exhaled very hot coffee out my nose.
ReplyDeleteFresh air, DEFINITELY a breath of fresh air.
I am not as overjoyed as the rest of the comments so far. While I agree that we need to reform health care in the United States, I think this bill is too flawed to do much good.
ReplyDeleteI don't really think the bill as passed will lower insurance premiums for the majority of Americans. I also don't think that the bill does anything to contain costs. The bill does not, for example, end the health insurance industry's exclusion from anti-trust regulation. The health insurance companies have no incentive currently, nor do they have any incentive under the new legislation, to foster true competition. In fact, just the opposite is now true. Everyone will be required to buy insurance, but it appears to me that everyone will also can be held hostage by the cost of health insurance.
The analogy I like to use is Kansas' experience with automobile insurance. Approximately 30 years ago, the insurance industry convinced the Kansas legislature that requiring everyone to have car insurance would reduce the cost of insurance for everyone. So, Kansas, like most states today, requires all drivers to carry at least minimums of liability insurance. However, the insurance rates did not go down. They went up, and have continued to rise faster than the rate of inflation.
I'm glad something got done on health care reform, but I don't rejoice at this bill. I think its deeply flawed, and I don't think Congress can really fix it.
TOE, I tend to agree with you. America asked for a cold one and they got a Bud Lite. Which I guess is still better than a Bush Lite.
ReplyDeleteCost containment was why we needed a public option, and why my rep wanted the single payer system. The whole point of having the public option was that if the government tells us they we have to buy insurance they should make sure that there's a decent option available.
I still think its a small improvement. Before, if you didn't like insurance costs you could complain to the companies or go without. Now that you can't really go without, there will be a lot more pressure on the insurance companies from the free market.
The other plus is that with the mandates come the ban from insuring pre-existing condition. This should be good for the workforce and (by extension) the GDP.
So I guess I'm somewhat plussed.
The ban on pre-existing conditions and the like won't take effect until 2014. Why so long? I don't see any real reason for it to take so long to implement this legislation. It doesn't take 4 years for insurance companies to rewrite their contracts.. they can probably do it overnight.. (ok, I'm exaggerating a bit, but it doesn't take 4 years). I suspect its because the money isn't there to pay for it now, and I really don't see any money being there in 4 years either.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I don't see free-market conditions as resulting in a reduction in rates as long as insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. They have no incentive to do so and there will still be no real competition. There is still no one to complain to about rates, although Dog Gone did tell me that there are provisions to allow for regulation of rates. I have yet to see those, but I'm sure that if DG says they are there, they must be.
ToE, AB, I understood it, the delay in implementing the ban on refusing insurance because of pre-existing conditions has to do with not conflicting with existing contracts.
ReplyDeleteInstead of hassling with changing signed contracts, this means that as of 'x' date new contracts cannot use pre-existing conditions for refusal to sell a policy or to deny coverage under an existing policy. I think they could have reasonably made it effective 2012, but compromise is compromise.
I do think there was too much compromise, and I hope we see further improvements on a go forward basis, since our planet didn't change the axis it rotates on, we haven't altered our orbit of the sun, and the moon is still pretty much where it always has been relative to the earth.
This was a good beginning, better than no beginning. It was a difficult success; one that encourages further improvements.
There are a few problems with this bill that will not show up for a couple yrs. For one all the estimates on reducing the budget do not count the 11 million illegals as they are not included in the bill but there is a bill working its way through the congress that will offer some sort of amnesty and add somewhere between 5 and 11 million to the number of people without insurance eligible for help from this plan. Most are low enough income there will not be additional taxes coming from them so that will definately impact the budget estimates. The other two points are mainly looking at what doctors and congress think of the bill. Roughly 97% of doctors in a poll said we needed health care reform, 76% were against this bill as written, 46% said they would not advise new people to go into medicine if this bill passed as is, and 33% said they would consider retirement or change of profession if it passed. As far as what Congress thinks of it why is there a clause that exempts the president and congress from having to participate?
ReplyDeletettucker said, "...why is there a clause that exempts the president and congress from having to participate?"
ReplyDeleteThat seems to be common element in many laws. Nevertheless, a couple of Democratic speakers last night said it was "just like" the healthcare plan that Congress had.
I know there are problems with the law, but I guess we will all have to read this new law for ourselves in order to really understand it.
The stars are still shining, however...and I don't see any cracks or gaping holes...
ttucker said...
ReplyDelete"There are a few problems with this bill that will not show up for a couple yrs. For one all the estimates on reducing the budget do not count the 11 million illegals as they are not included in the bill but there is a bill working its way through the congress that will offer some sort of amnesty and add somewhere between 5 and 11 million to the number of people without insurance eligible for help from this plan. "
I hope we have a serious review of our policy on immigration, including illegal immigrants.
However TT, I take issue with your statement that there is a problem with this bill.... that has nothgint to do with this bill.
You assert that there is some unspecified bill reputedly going through congress. WHAT bill, exactly TT?
It is not that hard to find out - call or email your congressman, look online for what is in committees dealing with immigration, call your local library and ask the reference librarian to find it for you if you don't have the time to look yourself. I want to know the identifying information it is under, and the specific language in the proposed legislation.
But absent that specific information about a real bill, not a rumor, I put this criticism in the same basket as "the bill will kill people", the legislation has death panels - oh yes, some ont he right are still promoting that BS -- and that the "deem and pass" being considered by Pelosi was some revolutionary constitution-threatening unheard of parliatmentary trick.
Let me refer you to some one-stop shopping for fact checking.
Palin won the politifact 2009 lie of the year for the death panel deception.
Look under the topic heading of abortion on politifact.com to read the busting of Stupak's claims about the bill, and Boehner's. And the whole hysteria over the money that goes through Sec Sebalious's department, and how THAT isn't going to fun abortions EITHER.
Look under Deem and Pass.
IF - BIG HUGE GIGANTIC IF - there is a piece of legislation in the near OR distant future addressing immigration that impacts health care reform, it will have to be addressed. SO WHAT? ALL changes in the future have to be addressed.
It does not make it a 'problem' fault or flaw with this legislation.
TT, my comment in response to what you wrote may seem at first blush to be a bit harshly critical.
ReplyDeleteMay I point out to you in my defense that completely false and misleading statements have been made about every aspect of the health reform legislation - including a sizable number of them about illegal immigrant coverage.
This is more of that same kind of lie, and it distresses me the number of people - many of them carrying protest signs - who do not fact check their information or make informed criticism. If I were to take a flying guess, you are relying on either Fox fake-news for your sources, or Rush Limbaugh (or someone like him) or both. They are not sources like CNN or many of the broadcast stations that have actually received legitimate recognition for journalism. That is no accident. The only serious recognition they receive are from the right patting them on the head for espousing positions from the right.
If that is what makes you happy, then enjoy them. But don't accept these statements or any others for that matter, without expecting to be challenged for not fact checking.
And TT or any other reader - if you can ever catch me failing to fact check a statement - bust me for it. Right here, don't hold back.
And I will thank you for it.
DG,
ReplyDeleteI know TT well enough to know he does a lot more reading than Fox News. I also am pretty confident, he's no fan of Limbaugh, so I think your guess is off the mark.
TT - I do have to concur with DG on a couple points. First, typically the Congress is specifically precluded from making laws that specifically require the President to do X or Y as part of separation of powers acts - I'll defer to our legal research guru here though.
That said, I see flaws with some of this. Drug companies will get more money (rather than pressure to hold down costs) by closing the Medicare part D loophole, and in general, the lack of competitive pressure is a problem, but that which WAS passed was by and large pretty well vetted out against various ideas. It represents what USED to be Republican proposals (from 10 years ago, for example) - and so I don't agree with the statement it is deeply flawed. It has shortcomings, I feel it didn't go far enough, but deeply flawed, I don't agree.
Possibly Pen - but 'reading' is not the same thing as fact checking sources or being skeptical enough about claims to check them out further.
ReplyDeleteDo you remember some of the fuss made about illegal immigrants being covered by this during the summer and fall? We addressed it here, including the immigration laws on the books, courtesy of our colleague ToE.
Do you disagree Pen that this is a fair claim to challenge?
The Health care bill has been signed, according to the news special report as I write this.
Generally, under the Separation of Powers doctrine, Congress cannot assume executive powers. Congress can, and has, changed presidential perks, along with its own perks. It remains to be seen if Congress can change judicial perks, as the judiciary would have then to decide whether the perks were compensation, or just fringe benefits to which the compensation clause did not apply. (US Const. Article III, Section 1 "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in Office." However we digress from the actual topic.
ReplyDeleteIts no secret that I am definitely NOT a fan of this "health care reform". This is for several reasons.
1) Its really not reforming health care. Its insurance reform, and it really doesn't significantly change insurance either. I see nothing in this bill that will truly foster competition, and therefore make health insurance affordable for all Americans. This bill is a boondoggle for the insurance industry, all their screaming aside. All of a sudden, they have 36 to 47 more people who are required by law to have insurance, and they can essentially charge whatever they like for the insurance.
2) The bill does nothing towards lowering the costs of drugs and medical treatment. Although I agree with Penigma that Tort reform is not a significant cost of why medical costs are rising, I also know that we can't continue at our current rate of inflation for medical treatment without ruining our economy.
I blame Mr. Obama and the Democrats for this bill as much as I blame Republicans for refusing to bargain or compromise. I blame the Democrats for being unable to even figure out what they really wanted. They apparently have little to no party discipline, whereas the Republicans have remarkable party discipline. (Not surprising in a party that has almost no moderate or liberal members these days... they moderate or liberal republicans have long been hounded out.)
ToE,
ReplyDeleteI concur that the bill doesn't do enough to foster competition - but feel it does do SOMETHING to foster competition, and will explain why.
Paying for Pre-Existing conditions and disallowing exclusion and recision will be a bitter pill for insurance companies. To handle it, they'll have to increase rates - of that I think we all understnd. Yet, by requiring ALL plans to perform in a uniform way, all plans will have to bear the cost/burden. Consequently, when employers are 'shopping' for better rates/plans, all of the underlying costs are baked in equally. As a result, the various payors are effetively required to compete with level playing field prices. I believe strongly this will have a competitive effect.
Yet, I do believe this does not go far enough, not by a darned site. It does not allow for negotiation of drug prices - something which Obama (et.al.) agreed to because the Drug Companies got out in front and said they'd support it (as opposed to oppose it) if it didn't require this. It has no public option, etc... For these reasons, I think this bill is only a start - but it is that, a start.
It shows that despite the massive objections of the insurance industry, we can move ahead. It was more symbolic than substantive, but it starts the process toward actual reform of how health care is delivered. Today it is primarily regulating insurance carriers, but it included regulation of Medicare services (LONG overdue) specifically by addressing overutilization.
It also was symbolic a of substance vs. fear victory - as Paul Krugman so ably defined it.
"Fear Strikes Out" - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html?src=me&ref=general
and lastly, it helped to clarify for the American public the enormous chasm between true leadership, and what passes for it in the Republican Party.
NYT Editorial - "An Absence of Class" - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html?src=me&ref=homepage
So while you blame the Democrats, I applaud them for having the stones to stand up to the insurance companies and the vast money on the right which will be thrown at them this fall.
My thoughts about congress, and its dysfunction, have been made pretty clear on this blog on other posts. While the Democratic party has a majority in the House, clearly, the Democrats don't have anything like the numbers they think they do. It took God-only-knows how many promises, back-room deals, and other shenanigans to get enough Democratic members of the House to pass this bill. And, it only passed with a majority of 3 votes. This isn't what I would call an overwhelming show of support.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama, from the very start, dropped the ball. His lack of leadership up until it looked like health care reform might actually fail, was appalling. He treated Congress as if he was still the junior senator from Illinois, and they treated him the same way.
The Republicans.. well, I'm equally disgusted by the outright lies and deliberate falsifications that have come out of the "Distinguished Gentlemen and Gentlewomen" of the Republican members of congress. Its blatant hypocrisy when Republicans complain about the lack of morals in the US today, and then the members of congress behave worse than common criminals who have gotten caught in one egregious lie after another. (e.g. Minnesota's own Michelle Bachmann)
The bill has very little immediate effect, and it will not have any real meaningful effect until 2014. This provision alone, IMHO, renders this bill meaningless. Yes, I've read that there are some provisions that go into effect almost immediately. Those provisions aren't enough, and unless the bill is changed to go into effect sooner, I think its worthless legislation.
"[Democrats] apparently have little to no party discipline, whereas the Republicans have remarkable party discipline."
ReplyDeleteSometimes it feels like the Republicans are good at doing the wrong thing the right way and the Democrats are good at doing the right thing the wrong way. If they ever really worked together America would be either greatly improved or completely obliterated, depending on which side of the razor the marble fell.