House passes landmark health care bill

Nurses Activism

Published

philadelphia inquirer

posted on sat, nov. 7, 2009

[color=#005266]house narrowly passes landmark health care bill -

david espo

the associated press

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.

"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.

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....

[color=#005266]key details of democrats' health overhaul bill

the house health care bill passed saturday would:

  • require most americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
  • expand health care coverage to 36 million more people over the next decade.
  • require employers with payrolls above $500,000 to provide insurance to their employees or pay a fine.
  • prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.
  • end premium disparities between men and women.
  • impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on income above $500,000 annually for individuals and above $1 million annually for households.
  • establish a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers beginning in 2013.
  • cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
  • cut medicare spending by more than $400 billion over 10 years.

hr3962 bill link:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/page...ls-111hr3962ih

go to formats text (2713 kb) | pdf (3438 kb) | xml (3499 kb)

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

Traditionally children cared for their parents in old age.

But even still healthcare is needed. We (children, nieces, and nephews) are taking turns staying with my aunt. But we couldn't do it without the wonderful professional advice of the hospice nurse.

Specializes in LTC.
I was making the point there if thats what you believe, there are plenty of places that cater to that belief. America is the only country left that those of us who disagree have. So, rather than try to take that away, why not agree to disagree and have your system across the pond and let us keep ours here?

This is my country, I'm not leaving.

I never said they were lazy, you're putting words in my mouth. I said the government assumed the role that should have been an individual responsibility. As you work, you should be contributing towards your retirement to make sure you have a nest egg to live off of. The government decided they could best see to the well being of our elders, and convinced them of that. They're not lazy in the least, they've been paying into a system their entire lives with the promise that they would be able to live off it when they retire. They just had the misfortune of trusting the government with something so important to their individual lives.

There's no misfortune for Medicare recipients, it's just about the best insurance system in the US, at least that's what the users of Medicare reiterate time and again.

Specializes in Med Surg.

People are making a big thing out of the House passing this bill. As of right now, it means NOTHING! It will now have to go to the Senate before it even gets close to the President's desk. What are the chances that it will make it through there wholly intact? Pretty much zero. The prez has told the Senate that he would like a vote from them by Christmas and several senators have said "good luck with that." A numer of senators from both sides of the aisle have stated their opposition to a number of provisions and vowed to filibuster any attempt to push them through.

In a bicameral system like ours it takes two to tango. After the Senate gets through with its disection the two houses will have to get together and come up with something that neither one likes but that they both (notice I didn't say we) can live with. This thing still has a pretty long road to travel.

It's correlative, I thought I made that clear. By denying a person services that would provide them a reasonable chance or survival and thereafter a decent quality of life, it correlates to killing them.

Rights are entitlements derived from law or morality. You make an excellent point however, regarding how those rights should be fulfilled. For example, by law I have the right to purchase a firearm, and as a society we have decided that the way I should fulfill this right is to pay for it directly. In regards to health care, we are currently in a debate regarding the best way to offer it.

In other words, you are suggesting that if I don't like it, I can move. This is a weak argument. For example, my neighbors occassional play music very loud late at night, I don't like it. My options are to accept it, move, or try to get them to stop so I can get sleep. Each and every one of those options is acceptable.

There are many of us who don't like the way our health care system is set-up, some undoubtedly have moved, others have accepted it and still others are advocating to change it in a way that they think will best serve everyone.

Nonsense. Seniors (and indeed most Americans) are self-reliant, motivated individuals. The argument that social programs encourage people to be dead-beats is a figment of your imagination and adds to the idea that those who utilize these programs are lazy.

Let's be clear about Medicare. It's in the whole and it has problems. But it runs with efficiency and has the highest user satisfaction among health insurance methods in the United States.

Americans don't want everything given to them on a silver platter, but many of us want to improve the framework of equal opportunity, and it's hard to deny it's not in need of improvement.

Medicare runs efficiently? Do you know that Medicare PAYS patient's to drive themselves to dialysis treatments 3 times a week? Medicare is the predominent healthcare insurance option for seniors. What do they have to compare to? Nothing?

This is my country, I'm not leaving.

There's no misfortune for Medicare recipients, it's just about the best insurance system in the US, at least that's what the users of Medicare reiterate time and again.

This is my country too. So complaining about your country.

Specializes in LTC.
Medicare runs efficiently? Do you know that Medicare PAYS patient's to drive themselves to dialysis treatments 3 times a week? Medicare is the predominent healthcare insurance option for seniors. What do they have to compare to? Nothing?

3% overhead. That's efficient. Private plans run anywhere from 10-30%.

Specializes in LTC.
This is my country too. So complaining about your country.

:confused:

Your second sentence makes no sense.

3% overhead. That's efficient. Private plans run anywhere from 10-30%.

Could that be because they shaft physicians/hospitals and only shell out 60% on the dollar? Private plans would be running a lot less then 3% if they could knock off almost half of their expenses. It's no wonder so many doctors refuse to take medicare patients.

Specializes in LTC.

Medicare has some really good advantages regarding cost saving measures. For example, they don't have to pay advertising or humongous CEO salaries and bonuses.

As far as Medicare payments giving hospitals and physicians the "shaft", I think it's more accurate that most hospitals are incredibly innefficient. Those hospitals that run efficiently had there costs needs met by Medicare.

Glenn Hackbarth (chairman of MedPAC) explains it quite well here.

Specializes in Med Surg.

Do you know that Medicare PAYS patient's to drive themselves to dialysis treatments 3 times a week?

That's news to me. My wife has had disability Medicare for five years including ESRD. I drive her to and from the center three days a week and I guarantee that Medicare pays nothing towards transportation. I have checked with everyone I can think of including my Congressman's office to make sure she is geting every benefit she is entiltled to and transportation is nowhere on the list.

We DO get a little $36 dollar check from the Texas Kidney Health Fund each month thats based on the Yahoo! Maps distance from our house to the dialysis center. That buys about a half tank of gas.

Do you know that Medicare PAYS patient's to drive themselves to dialysis treatments 3 times a week?

That's news to me. My wife has had disability Medicare for five years including ESRD. I drive her to and from the center three days a week and I guarantee that Medicare pays nothing towards transportation. I have checked with everyone I can think of including my Congressman's office to make sure she is geting every benefit she is entiltled to and transportation is nowhere on the list.

We DO get a little $36 dollar check from the Texas Kidney Health Fund each month thats based on the Yahoo! Maps distance from our house to the dialysis center. That buys about a half tank of gas.

Well then I suppose I should stop signing those travel vouchers.

Specializes in Med Surg.
Well then I suppose I should stop signing those travel vouchers.

Well, that was certainly a helpful reply. I was talking about our particular situation. We have put in over a dozen requests over the last few years and every one was turned down. Our congessman's office said no go. The local Social Security office has told us that Medicare will not pay for transportation.

If you know something else to try why not share it?

+ Add a Comment