Senate passes historic health care reform legislation 60-39
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25health.html?hp
-
-
- current89
- added this
The 60-to-39 party-line vote, on the 25th straight day of debate on the legislation, brings Democrats a step closer to a goal they have pursued for decades. It clears the way for negotiations with the House, which passed a broadly similar bill last month by a vote of 220 to 215.
If the two chambers can strike a deal, as seems likely, the resulting product would vastly expand the role and responsibilities of the federal government. It would, as lawmakers said repeatedly in the debate, touch the lives of nearly all Americans.
President Obama said after the vote that the health care bill is “the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act” was adopted and that it represents “the toughest measure ever taken to hold the insurance companies accountable.”
If the bill becomes law, it would be a milestone in social policy, comparable to the creation of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. But unlike those programs, the new initiative lacks bipartisan support. Only one Republican voted for the House bill last month, and no Republicans voted for the Senate version.
When the roll was called at 7:05 a.m. on Thursday, it was a solemn moment. Senators called out “aye” or “no.” Senator Robert C. Byrd, the 92-year-old Democrat from West Virginia, deviated slightly from the protocol.
“This is for my friend Ted Kennedy,” Mr. Byrd said. “Aye!”
After struggling for years to expand health insurance in modest, incremental ways, Democrats decided this year that they could not let another opportunity slip away.
As usual, lawmakers were deluged with appeals from lobbyists for health care interests who have stymied similar ambitious efforts in the past. But this year was different.
Lawmakers listened to countless stories of hardship told by constituents who had been denied insurance, lost coverage when they got sick or seen their premiums soar. Hostility to the health insurance industry was a theme running through the Senate debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25health.html?hp
-
- groups:
- Community, US Politics, US Congress Watch, Civil Discussions, 1 more
-
-
libertyforall
-
spanky07:
JonRaymond,
"ubt it. Besides that, why should she have to work at a sucky job just to have health care (assuming there is even such a job to be found)?"
Thanks for perfectly summing up, in general, those without health care. It's not that they can't get a job or afford health care. It's that they feel they are too good to work a "sucky" job that provides them with those things.
Yes, people should do what makes them happy. That is what life is about. However, don't complain when you choose happiness over doing what may be needed and then ask the government to steal my money because you don't want to work a "sucky" job.
Like I've already said numerous times, I'm not against true health care reform. Prices need to be lowered and insurers need to quit ripping us off. I'm trying to dispel the myths that the insurance industry is unregulated when it is one of the most regulated industries in the country. Which drives up the prices.
Its time you get an attitude adjustment and start trying to improve your situation on your own rather than asking the government to steal from those of us who have made the choice to work hard and provide for ourselves.
- 2 years ago
-
libertyforall
-
-
02
-
spanky07:
Regulation doesn't drive up the prices. The whole thing is a sham to take money out of everyone's pocket and give it to parasites. But you have to be smart enough to see.
No see, no comprehend.
The bad guys here are entirely the insurance industry and their pay-offs to their hired bureaucrats.
You see? The 'government' is their under-the-table hired hacks. You don't stand a chance when they have you comin' and goin'. Losing is not what they're in business for. You get it? - 2 years ago
-
02
-
-
macfan
-
spanky07:
libertyforall sometimes health care is unafford no matter what job you have.
- 2 years ago
-
macfan
-
-
libertyforall
-
spanky07:
02,
"Regulation doesn't drive up the prices."
Say what? Apparently someone was absent from econ class.
80% of our pharmaceutical prices come from FDA regulations. Why do you think we can get them so much cheaper from Canada? Why do you think American companies outsource labor? Because of regulations.
Regulations play a huge role in driving up prices.
- 2 years ago
-
libertyforall
-
-
02
-
spanky07:
That's not true. We get higher prices because we are being gouged. If regulations caused high-prices, prices would be higher elsewhere -
But they are only high-priced here - because here is where corporations are stealing your money. We are the money-pot for the rest of the world - and our corporations are first in line and otherwise the middlemen between us and places like China.A lot of the drugs are mass-produced in China, then sold to you at inflated rates.
Everything is sold to you at inflated rates.
- 2 years ago
-
02
-
-
arikata
-
spanky07:
@ libertyforall
What about people like me? 18, still in college and working my ass off just to pay tuition. I have minor spinal defects that I was sadly born with, so any decent insurance is going to charge a ridiculous amount to cover me. Even after I finally graduate, pay off all my loans, work my way up in my field of choice, I probably won't be able to afford an insurance that will cover the spinal surgeries I may need later in my life.
I do not have a unique story. You do not graduate college an instantly get a good job, the world isn't perfect like that. There is a huge gap between being able to be covered by your parents insurance and being able to afford your own and our health care system currently completely ignores these people. It is terrifying. Why would you want to live in a country that turns its back to so many.
And don't you dare try to tell me socialized options don't work. I've lived in New Zealand and it worked just fine down there. No reason the same can't be true here.
- 2 years ago
-
arikata
-
-
02
-
spanky07:
The a reason - business interests who make all the money don't want their gravy-train ended. That's why it might be best to go to NZ or Canada - or somewhere else. Welcome to being born in America.
- 2 years ago
-
02
-
-
Hou_Kairs
-
spanky07:
Wrong. This is the beginning of the saving of America and its people. Its probably people like you who have insurance and a job, so therefore if the problem doesn't exist in your life, you think there is no problem.
Wake up! Or else you too will be homeless, out of work, no insurance and the only viable option you'll be able to see for yourself is to join the military and risk your life for a dumb ass cause that you can't even name for sure.
This is Life conquering Death and its about damn time this changed occurred.
And if you don't like it, move to a different country. Then you'll realize how good you have it here in America. Good riddance or Wake Up!
- 2 years ago
-
Hou_Kairs
-
-
libertyforall
-
spanky07:
arikata,
I am not arguing against reform and there needs to be major reform.
Big government socialist programs do not work. Our government has butchered and killed nearly every program it has been tasked to operate. Including the daily operations of our country.
New Zealand population - 4.2 million
US population - 300 millionThat is why our government cannot, and should not, even come close to running anything as important as health care.
Every person will never be covered in any system. It is just the fact of life and some people will get left out.
- 2 years ago
-
libertyforall
-
-
02
-
spanky07:
No one wants government to run health-care - that is not the issue - never was the issue. We would like government to be the one payer.
Health-care would be private, just like now.
- 2 years ago
-
02
-
-
arikata
-
spanky07:
@ 02
Well I know I don't want all healthcare to be private so don't say that isn't the argument.
@ libertyforall
You don't seem to realize that you still will have the option to go private. Just because there is a public option doesn't mean you won't have the ability to pick and choose your own.
And man, you're making a giant generalization. Yes I understand that certain things only work in countries with small population, the gross national happiness of Bhutan for example. I don't think healthcare is one of these.
Look at France, it's considered to have the best healthcare in the world. Yeah it's still a lot smaller than America at 62 million, but it's still large enough to be considered a big country. It's universal and costs about half of what American's pay per capita.
I don't understand this idea that the government is worst than private insurance companies. I much rather put in to something that has my actual health in mind rather than something that only cares about its profit margins. Health should never be a business.
- 2 years ago
-
arikata
-
-
02
-
spanky07:
Maybe we ought to straighten out the language - we are talking about 'insurance' that is: who pays.
We are not talking about health care providing.
If there is one payer - everybody has the same payer, then health costs go down. No one gets less health care, no one gets sub-standard health care.
The quality of health care should rise - because even though the paying is handled through the government - they are not trying to cheat everybody because, in this case, WE OWN the insurance company.
And it wouldn't take the very rich long to figure out that what they paid through the nose for, can be had for no direct cost.
The government would simply handle all medical bills. People would not even have to think about it anymore.
- 2 years ago
-
02
-
-
NotFooled
-
The people that the left is ignoring this year, are the ones that they will hear loud and clear from next year.
- 2 years ago
-
NotFooled
-
-
2hellnwait
-
NotFooled:
Actually, the proposed garbage that was passed would have been better passed and flushed down a porcelain throne!
- 2 years ago
-
2hellnwait
