House Heathcare Reform Bill on floor now.

[SirNitram]

As of this posting, they're about to start on the anti-abortion amendment offered by conservative Democrats. Basically, any care from the Public Option or Federally Subsidized cannot perform abortions, period. Basically, expanding Hyde and removing all exceptions for health of mother and fetus.

Updates as I find 'em...

[darthdavid]

BUT FETUSES ARE PEOPLE TOO JEEBUS SAID SO!!!

[CarsonPalmer]

BUT FETUSES ARE PEOPLE TOO JEEBUS SAID SO!!!

It'll be worth it if it gets the bill passed, though

[Knife]

Indeed, they can repel that later if they can get the bill through.

[CarsonPalmer]

The abortion measure has passed, and the Republican alternative has been rejected.

[SirNitram]

Motion to Recommit. As always, procedural delay, delay, delay. You'd think they're afraid of something. Oh right, a government program that works destroys their precious 'GOVERNMENT IS DER PROBLEM!' meme.

Thankfully, despite the more-orange-than-normal Boenher repeatedly demanding assurances the Abortion amendment would survive Reconcilian, no Dem took the bait. It looks like they CAN be taught!

[CarsonPalmer]

MSNBC reports that the vote has begun.

[CarsonPalmer]

Son of a bitch, I think it just passed 218-214!

[CarsonPalmer]

I was incorrect. It passed 220-215. All reps have now voted. One Republican voted for the bill, though.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not final for a few minutes, but its at 220 now. One Republican came along.

Edit: damn, beat me to it by about half a second.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its now official. Time for the victory party?

[JME2]

Its now official. Time for the victory party?

I've got a bottle of Smithwicks Ale cooling in the fridge...

[CarsonPalmer]

A fine FOX moment: their top headline on the website is "Death Penalty for Fort Hood Suspect?". Health care has to share space with the ground-breaking ceremony on a memorial for Flight 93 and some water polo player who jumped off the George Washington Bridge, pushed off to the side.

BUT NONE OF THAT MATTERS TONIGHT!

[Coyote]

I went to HuffPo to see what sort of watered-down, empty-shell half-ass compromise bill was finally made to fellate Rethugs and Blue Dogs, and saw this quick description:

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.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/0 ... 68.html&cp

Not bad, really. I shouldn't be so surprised the abortion fanatics got their digs in, but this is pretty good. Most importantly, it limits the power of the companies to assfuck their clients. The business practice restrictions (especially monopolies) and inability to turn down for pre-existing conditions are nice in particular.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.

That alone is a huge victory. How the fuck did they get such immunity in the first place?

It definitely goes a long way to explaining -why- our system got so fucked up.

[darthdavid]

I've heard no mention of a public option. Does this bill have it or is more along the lines of "well the insurance companies still get to rape you, but they have to use lube now..."?

[KroLazuxy_87]

IIRC, it basically extends medicare instead of creating a new program. As for the anti-abortion amendment, I may not support it, but I understand it was needed for votes. Does anyone know if it goes so far as to deny coverage for the morning after pill or any other emergency contraception? or even birth control for that matter? If more people have access to these, we should see a decrease in abortions anyway.

[Dominus Atheos]

I've heard no mention of a public option. Does this bill have it or is more along the lines of "well the insurance companies still get to rape you, but they have to use lube now..."?

The second one. Technically there's a public option, but it only covers 2% of the population.

The Associated Press reports that number crunching shows that only 2% of Americans under age 65 will receive health insurance under the public option proposed in the House bill.

The Democratic health care bills would extend coverage to the uninsured by providing government help with premiums and prohibiting insurers from excluding people in poor health or charging them more. But to keep from piling more on the federal deficit, most of the uninsured will have to wait until 2013 for help. Even then, many will have to pay a significant share of their own health care costs.

[More...]

According to the Congressional Budget Office:

The budget office estimated that about 6 million people would sign up for the public option in 2019, when the House bill is fully phased in. That represents about 2 percent of a total of 282 million Americans under age 65. (Older people are covered through Medicare.)

The overwhelming majority of the population would remain in private health insurance plans sponsored by employers. Others, mainly low-income people, would be covered through an expanded Medicaid program.

Most people won't have access to the public option plan:

Under the House bill, it would be offered through new insurance exchanges open only to those who buy coverage on their own or work for small companies. Yet even within that pool of 30 million people, only 1-in-5 would take the public option.

The public option may not turn out to be cheaper:

The budget office said "a less healthy pool of enrollees" would probably be attracted to the public option, drawn by the prospect of looser rules on access to specialists and medical services.

As a result, premiums in the public plan would be higher than the average for private plans. That could nudge healthy middle-class workers and their families to sign up for private plans.

Insurance companies don't care about the CBO numbers. They still oppose the public option:

While a government plan might start out modestly, insurers fear that Congress could change the rules later, opening it up to all people and setting take-it-or-leave payments for hospitals and medical providers, instead of negotiating, as the House bill calls for.

Also it includes a mandate to buy insurance, so it's not "gets to rape you but has to use lube" it's "you have to let them rape you but they have to use lube".

And don't forget that while it's a good ide and was necessary, forcing insurers to cover and not charge more for pre-existing conditions will cause premiums to go up for everyone else. So the net effect of the bill is an increase in cost for most people.

[Knife]

Yeah, but it is there now and can be added to later. Like next year or even 2011 after the mid terms. Just have to keep pressure on the Dems to do it.

[Qwerty 42]

CNN's article:

House passes health care reform bill
November 7, 2009 11:48 p.m. EST
The House on Saturday passed an amendment to ban public funding for abortions in most cases under the public option.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* NEW: House passes health-care reform bill with mostly Democratic support
* Amendment passes banning most abortions under public option
* "This is our moment to deliver," President Obama says as House meets

Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215.

Earlier, the House passed an amendment to pending health care legislation that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create.

The vote passed 240-194.

A second amendment considered by the House, introduced by Minority Leader John Boehner, which would have substituted several sections of the health care bill dealing with insurance, did not pass. Legislators voted against the amendment 258-176.

The first amendment, introduced by anti-abortion Democrats, bans federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance "exchange" the bill would create. Its consideration was considered a big win for them and for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power -- especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts -- to help force other Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

The prohibition, introduced by Democratic members, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger.

Republicans strongly supported the measure.

The GOP accounted for 174 of the votes in favor of the amendment, with 1 Republican voting "present."

On the Democrat's side, 64 voted for the measure, and 194 voted against.

Earlier Saturday, President Obama said members of the House of Representatives face the chance of a lifetime as they consider the legislation.

After a meeting with the House Democratic leadership, the president said he told lawmakers that "opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation."

"This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us," Obama told reporters in the White House rose garden. "Even when it's hard, especially when it's hard, this is our moment to deliver."

He had just returned from Capitol Hill, where the House had begun debate on the nearly $1.1 trillion health care bill.

A senior Democratic aide quoted the president as saying during the meeting that he was "absolutely confident" that they would pass the legislation.

"When I sign this in the rose garden, each and every one of you will be able to look back and say, 'This was my finest moment in politics,'" the aide quoted Obama as saying.

Anti-abortion Democrats will introduce an amendment to the measure that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option and other insurance providers in the new "exchange" the legislation would create, three Democratic sources told CNN.

The prohibition would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the woman's life is in danger.

House Minority Leader John Boehner said the GOP leadership strongly supports that amendment.

"We believe taxpayer funding of abortion is wrong, and we will do everything we can to stop that from happening, by passing the Stupak amendment," he said.

The fact that the amendment will be allowed to be proposed is a big win for anti-abortion Democrats and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power -- especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts -- to help force Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

"We didn't have a choice," said a Democratic leadership source. "We didn't have the votes" on health care without agreeing to this compromise.

Planned Parenthood decried the amendment, saying it would result in the elimination of abortion coverage currently offered by most private health insurance plans.

"This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes," the group said in a statement.

The Democratic sources said people would be able to use their own money to purchase insurance policy riders that include abortion coverage.

"I foresee for poor women in America a return to the dark ages," said Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida.

Meanwhile, members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus staunchly oppose including a provision that would bar undocumented workers from using their own money to buy health insurance policies available through the exchange.

The measure is already included in the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill and is backed by the White House. Some conservative House Democrats have also indicated their support for the Senate language.

Several Hispanic Caucus members who discussed the issue with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday said they had received assurances the Senate language would not be included. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, warned Thursday that several caucus members might try to block the House bill if it's changed to conform to the Senate measure.

Pelosi's bill includes various requirements for immigrants to verify their citizenship before getting federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Conservatives, however, have called the requirements insufficient.

Many conservatives and Blue Dog Democrats also continue to raise questions about the overall cost of the bill.

"The speaker's bill includes job-killing taxes and mandates that will hurt small businesses," Boehner said Friday. "For the sake of our families and small businesses, this job-killing bill needs to be defeated."

The House bill would extend insurance coverage to 36 million uncovered Americans and guarantee that 96 percent of Americans have coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Among other things, the bill would subsidize insurance for poorer Americans, establish a new government-run public option and create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for small groups and individuals to purchase coverage. It would also cap annual out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Pelosi's office has said the bill would cut the federal deficit by roughly $30 billion over the next decade. The measure is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and spending constraints in Medicare and Medicaid.

CNN's Dana Bash, Elaine Quijano, Lisa Desjardins, Alan Silverleib, Paul Steinhauser and Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Emphasis added. The option's in.

e: had not seen DA's post.

[Mr Bean]

Why exactly is their Public option limited to 2%? Are Employer's not allowed to buy into it? Is it for the poor only? There are a dozen ways they can limit it, how does this bill do that?

[Qwerty 42]

Why exactly is their Public option limited to 2%? Are Employer's not allowed to buy into it? Is it for the poor only? There are a dozen ways they can limit it, how does this bill do that?

The article DA linked said that the option would be included as a possibility for people who meet certain criteria, and the House budgeting committee estimates that 20% of those qualifying would take that option. That's an important part of DA's article: that percentage figure is an estimate used for budgeting purposes. As far as I can tell, the article implies that as high as 10% of the population could be covered under the plan.

[darthdavid]

See this is just what I feared. Honestly, it's probably worse than no public option. With such a limited base and the fact that it will appeal most to those with serious existing conditions the republicans and traitorcrats will be able point to it either as an example of government inefficiency (look at how much higher the premiums are than private insurance, free market for the win lol!) or as a disproportionate example of how expensive a full public option would be if tax dollars are used to keep premiums down. By creating such a crippled piece of shit they're basically guaranteeing that, if it doesn't outright fail, it will never be expanded into a system actually capable of the exploiting the advantages a public option should have...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, remember that they're expanding Medicaid to cover everyone within 150% of the federal poverty level, so that 2% of the population (actually a maximum of 10 million people, or around 3% of the population) most likely to be covered by the public option will be in addition to the population under 150% of the federal poverty level which will now be eligible for Medicaid. And then Medicare covers the elderly meaning a rather more respectable percentage of the US population will be under government insurance. The problem is that it creates three different federal insurance programmes... why? Consolidating medicare and medicaid and letting them sell insurance at-cost for people not meeting the requirements for free care would save huge amounts on overhead, but, ah, the US government is banned from making sense.

[Rogue 9]

For reference, the federal poverty guidelines may be found here.