HR 3962 Has Passed the House.

cwazycwissyRN · Nov 08, 2009, 02:52 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

WASHINGTON – 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.

Nancy does cause much humor, even on this evening. Go girl, compare this program with the other government ran programs that are in trillions of dollars of debt. Good point Nancy. I mean, really, at this point what is another trillion, well of course both of those programs cost 9 to 10 times their projections...hmmmmm so what's another several trillion dollars of debt added on really going to hurt? Entitilement programs....are driving this country into bankrupsy. Next on the adgenda, they have used to poor to obtain power in America, now they will use the planet earth to obtain power throught out the world. Maybe the congress will stop this crazyness, if not, well America, hand over your health and your wallets to uncle sam.

*Spidey's mom* · Nov 08, 2009, 09:57 AM

www.heritage.org

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/

Heritage commissioned a "Lewin Group study that made it clear that more than 88 million Americans would lose their private insurance if a government competitor were created. And as a Heritage study just showed . . . Obamacare will cost U.S. Businesses up to $49 Billion a year and will mean that as many as 5.5 million Americans could lose their job. The CBO numbers showing that the plans being proposed wouldn't lower costs BUT RAISE THEM drove in another nail"

. . ."using reconciliation to ram through a bill, is a tactical error. Reconciliation - a legislative process that requires only a 51-vote majority in the 100-seat Senate, rather than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster - is expressly meant only for budgetary matters. Its use would divide the country further . . "

As to "bi-partisan" . . . .thanks for the chuckle Viking.

steph

pattyjo · Nov 08, 2009, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by tntrn

I have to call my doctor, while I still can choose one myself, because this makes me ill.

I am much more of a "reader" here than a "writer" so I mean no disrespect when I ask this question, just curious.
Does your insurance now allow you to choose whichever health care provider? I ask because not only does mine list specific doctors from which to choose as well as accepted facilities, but also dictates the care and the medicine I receive. Example: a couple of years ago my doctor changed my htn med to try for better effectiveness. Quickly found out that I could not get that med via my insurance so she had to change to another med. Less than a year later, I got a letter from my insurance company stating that that med was no longer on formulary and suggested I return to my doctor for change and suggested, you guessed it, the original med.
I'm glad I have insurance at all, but this whole choice thing puzzles me.
Thanks

*herring_RN* · Nov 08, 2009, 10:24 AM

Congressman Dennis Kucinich after voting against H.R. 3962 addresses why he voted NO, stating:

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care.
We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem.
When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system." ...

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=...=2838&Itemid=2

GCTMT · Nov 08, 2009, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by herring_RN

Congressman Dennis Kucinich after voting against H.R. 3962 addresses why he voted NO, stating:

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care.
We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem.
When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system." ...

http://kucinich.us/index.php?option=...=2838&Itemid=2

I agree with Kucinich. All you have to do is pay attention to know that health insurance companies care about profit, and little else. Kucinich is a single-payer advocate, as am I. It's my hope, that this legislation will be a stepping stone to single-payer. Though, I can not say with confidence that it will be.

The bottome line is, the profit motive needs to be taken out of health care entirely.

*tntrn* · Nov 08, 2009, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by pattyjo

I am much more of a "reader" here than a "writer" so I mean no disrespect when I ask this question, just curious.
Does your insurance now allow you to choose whichever health care provider? I ask because not only does mine list specific doctors from which to choose as well as accepted facilities, but also dictates the care and the medicine I receive. Example: a couple of years ago my doctor changed my htn med to try for better effectiveness. Quickly found out that I could not get that med via my insurance so she had to change to another med. Less than a year later, I got a letter from my insurance company stating that that med was no longer on formulary and suggested I return to my doctor for change and suggested, you guessed it, the original med.
I'm glad I have insurance at all, but this whole choice thing puzzles me.
Thanks

Some of what you say has merit. Yes, our insurance has preferred providers, but a very large selection of them. Never have I had to get a new doctor because a former one no longer is on the list. Yes, some medications are suggested to be tried before others, but never has the most effective one been paid for (after the trial of others.)

I fear, now that we are very close to that Medicare age, that our current doctor may choose not to keep us on once we become Medicare patients. If that would happen, and so many other doctors already don't take new Medicare patients, then we're left with what's left. And that, in my humble opinion, means I have no choice whatsoever, except for who is left over.

This government controlled thing may sounds like a winner to some, but I don't like the idea at all. Currently, if I don't like my insurance I am free to seek another. In the future, the "other" alternative will be the government. No thanks.

**VivaLasViejas** · Nov 08, 2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by GCTMT

I agree with Kucinich. All you have to do is pay attention to know that health insurance companies care about profit, and little else. Kucinich is a single-payer advocate, as am I. It's my hope, that this legislation will be a stepping stone to single-payer. Though, I can not say with confidence that it will be.

The bottome line is, the profit motive needs to be taken out of health care entirely.

This is a rare point on which I agree with liberals.

I don't want the federal government to run health care, but I do want a single-payer system, thus I am not in favor of this half-baked version of healthcare 'reform'. I believe that all American citizens should be able to go to the doctor when they are ill without worrying that it will break the bank. I don't have a problem with insurance companies providing bigger and better benefits packages to those who are willing and able to pay for them; but EVERYONE deserves basic health care no less than they deserve police and fire protection, clean water and air, roads and other services provided by our civilized society through tax dollars.

Like it or not, we are going to be paying for health care......personally, I'd rather my health-care dollars go to the providers who actually help people, rather than into the pocket of some insurance-company CEO. But, that's just me.

Jolie · Nov 08, 2009, 12:57 PM

Of his vote, Cao said: “Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana.

If this is what Representative Cao of LA believes his vote will bring about, he is truly delusional.

iteachob · Nov 08, 2009, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by GCTMT

Pelosi's bill has passed.

I just watched it pass on C-Span. It was pure jubilation amongst the Dems. in the house.

Applauding their own demise (2010).............

*leslie :-D* · Nov 08, 2009, 01:24 PM

this is major stuff we're talking about here...
and whether i agree with their policy or not, i think it's safe to say that many of us are scared out of our wits re how/what its impact will be.

as with all other political concerns, i shall wait and see before pulling my hair out.

leslie