Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
print
font size
options
 
READER FEEDBACK
Post a comment


The real recovery act

WHEN 219 Democrats - and one Republican - passed the Affordable Health Care for Americans Act just before midnight on Saturday, there was loud cheering and extended applause in the House of Representatives. It was deserved. In 60-plus years of talking about it, a bill aimed at providing universal health insurance had passed a house of Congress. It was an historic victory.

So why did the celebration feel so hollow? What should have been a sweet victory was soured by the razor-thin margin of the House bill's passage. And Democrats paid for it by allowing an amendment that, if allowed to stand, could lead to a ban on even private insurance coverage for abortions.

Still, there's a lot to like in H.R. 3962: Several reforms that would take effect immediately would end nightmares that have ruined -if not ended - the lives of millions of Americans: The law would outlaw the denial of insurance because "pre-existing" condition and end lifetime caps on insurance. Americans would no longer face death or bankruptcy because their insurance "ran out." It would allow young adults to be carried on their parents' health insurance until age 27, even if they aren't full-time students.

In the longer term, the bill would establish an insurance exchange from which individuals could choose plans that meet minimum standards, including a "public option," a government-administered insurance plan that would provide some competition to private plans that has become the progressive litmus test for true health-care reform.

But 39 Democrats voted against their leadership so the legislation limps into the Senate, where it will be even more difficult to pass since it will need 60 votes to end a filibuster. This threatens more compromises that could so weaken the law as to make it unworkable. President Obama did visit Capitol Hill to rally the troops on Saturday, but he continues to signal a strange reluctance to fight for what was, just a year ago, the centerpiece of his campaign for change.

In the weeks ahead, the bill moves to the Senate and, if we're lucky, to conference. You can help by letting the White House know how, through calls and e-mails - and, yes, refusals to donate - you expect the president to speak less softly in battle ahead and be willing to demand, as he has said, that members of his party do what they "were sent here to do." *

Comments   
Posted 08:02 AM, 11/10/2009
constantine
What's more important?!?! Meaningless political outcomes or actual content of the bill which would affect us all? If you really care about is maneuvering, then talk about the backdoor deals and private closed door deals that shut Americans out of the conversation. Of course, your last two paragraphs are most telling; you're really only interested in seeing passage of a bill (however ineffective or destructive) for the sake of a shallow political victory in what you see as a war (that's coming from your own aggressive allusions). But if you really care about the public, give Americans the details of the bill from the 1000+ pages and explain it carefully.
Posted 09:22 AM, 11/10/2009
longshanks
What's more important? Sending $15 Billion in "aid" money to Pakistan or spending $15 Billion for Americans to have health care? Well for Republicans it's Pakistan despite the fact that the country allows the Taliban and Al Qaeda to hide within its borders.
Posted 09:48 AM, 11/10/2009
MB6
Really, don't get too excited about it. It's faux-form. It delays genuine reform. Worth reading: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/is-the-house-health-care_b_350190.html.....Also worth reading: http://pnhp.org/blog/....And this: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/05
Posted 09:53 AM, 11/10/2009
pj katauskas
Lshanks, have you done enough research to know that $15 billion is peanuts compared to the $800+ billion health care bill?
Posted 11:57 AM, 11/10/2009
longshanks
What difference does it make? The point is that we hand out $15 Billion to the people that harbor our enemies and that was done by the people elected by conservatives yet neocons whine about spending money on their own countrymen and women. That's a rotten shame. Besides, if we didn't invade and occupy Iraq for no reason we'd have $800 Billion. For some reason it's ok to spend $15 Billion or $800 Billion or a trillion on Pakistanis and Iraqis but NOT Americans. Halliburton's Iraq revenue: $16 Billion. Mission Accomplished.
Posted 12:14 PM, 11/10/2009
obviousman#1
The stupid hourse of reps have passed a law that will make 10% unemployment look low. It will now be more expensive to hire an american. Most corporations who have been delying hiring until seeing the outcome will now know the way to go is more offshore outsoucing and not hiring at home. Way to go Dems.
Posted 12:32 PM, 11/10/2009
constantine
Longshanks, please stop your uneducated and tiresome posts until you finally start learning about healthcare. Medicare spends at least $8 Billion on pressure ulcer treatment alone. If you don't know what a pressure ulcer is, look it up or get off your couch and spend some time with bedridden chronically ill. You'd do us all a favor if you can present something meaningful and relevant. It was obvious from the beginning that corrupt officials in Pakistan were going to keep most of the "aid" to themselves, just as we see in Africa or the Middle East, but it isn't relevant and can't compare with what we're talking about here. Whether Halliburton, ACORN, or Al Gore's green companies gain millions or billions in government contracts is irrelevant to the issue of healthcare. In other words, drive on the highway exchange of ideas, not off towards the woods in the grass.
Posted 12:37 PM, 11/10/2009
DarkKnight76
Still, no con can seem to answer why it is ok to spend billions on foreign countries, but not ok to spend billions on their fellow citizens health. Spend billions on fixing countries that we destroyed and that harbor our enemies, a-ok. Make sure Bob down the street doesn't lose his house and life savings from a medical bill, COMMUNIST!!! Do you cons even see the humor, and despicablness of your position?
Posted 12:49 PM, 11/10/2009
constantine
Why America gives away billions to foreign nations (whether friends or foe) every year makes no sense to me, especially given our growing debt. In the meantime, the Chinese government takes a different stance: it loans billions to other nations in Africa and The Americas so it can strongarm them later. And if politicians repeatedly waste billions or trillions of dollars in so many ways (as Longshanks started pointing out), then we better scrutinize what they're hashing out in the legislation that they are hiding from us. Now let's leave politics behind and get back to the issue of healthcare.
Posted 05:28 PM, 11/10/2009
lefty
constantine, we should be thanking our lucky stars that the Chinese haven't yet called in their markers!
Posted 01:09 AM, 11/11/2009
pjsz1261
Longshanks keeps trotting out the $15 billion in aid to Pakistan as though there is any comparison between the two issues. A. $1.2 trillion is more than $15 billion. B. I agree that aid to Pakistan is funding a corrupt gov't. C. What the hell does one have to do with the other? I'll tell you....nada! Thus whole healthcare mess is being sold as a means to "bend the cost curve down", reduce fraud and waste, improve medical record keeping, cover more Americans and improve the quality of our "broken" healthcare system in a deficit neutral manner. I ask all you supporters of the plan to answer honestly. Do any of you truly believe that any of those things are possible? Just admit it. You want the government in charge of healthcare and you are either blind or stupid if you believe the cost is going to go down.
Comment removed.
Posted 11:07 AM, 11/11/2009
jd587
Let me get this right, for the first time in US history the Federal government will require me to purchase a product a product whether I need or want it, theywill basically set the price, determine the coverage I need to get, etc. If I don't do as "commanded" I face fines and potentially imprisonment. So it seems the DN is ok with the feds limiting all freedoms except the "right" to aborions....let's get real
Posted 03:47 PM, 11/11/2009
lefty
andy>>> The government will just continue to print more money to meet its ever-expanding programs. As for universal healthcare being wonderful, if you're a senior, Medicare is going to take a hugh hit: prospective payments, diagnostic-related group payments to hospitals and docs, etal., are scheduled to be reduced to unacceptible levels; services will suffer. If you're employed and possess a rich medical insurance plan("Cadillac plans"), you and your employer are going to get socked. If you work for a small employer who offers little or no insurance, get ready for layoffs to compensate for the mandatory provisions that affect all employers. If you're a young employee who has a "Cafeteria" style plan and you elected alternative offerings (health clubs, cash-back incentives) in lieu of all-encompassing medical insurance, you will be forced to buy into a medical plan. Now, if you're unemployed and without insurance, those in the other categories will subsidize your new found coverage.
14 comments
  • Jobs
  • Cars
  • Real Estate
  • Rentals
 
SEARCH JOBS
Spotlight Deal
Center City 19107
Spotlight Deal
Southwark 19147
SEARCH REAL ESTATE
Spotlight Deal
Rittenhouse Square 19103
Spotlight Deal
East Falls 19129
SEARCH RENTALS
The Ballot Box
Should health care reform include a public option?
Yes.
No.