US House Passes Healthcare, 220-215

[amicus]

39 Democrats voted against the Bill, one Republican voted for it.

I listened to the House debate on CSPAN most of the afternoon and into the evening until the final vote at about 11pm Eastern Time. It was, at times, a boisterous debate.

An amendment to the Bill, strengthening the anti abortion advocates was approved.

No predictions on the Senate vote and no idea of just when that is scheduled.

We shall see…

Amicus

 

[TE999]

39 Democrats voted against the Bill, one Republican voted for it.

I listened to the House debate on CSPAN most of the afternoon and into the evening until the final vote at about 11pm Eastern Time. It was, at times, a boisterous debate.

An amendment to the Bill, strengthening the anti abortion advocates was approved.

No predictions on the Senate vote and no idea of just when that is scheduled.

We shall see…

Amicus

220-215 isn't a ringing endorsement by any means...and I bet not one in ten who voted even read that behemoth. I'm pleased that so many Dem's voted against it...they'll keep their seats when re-election time rolls around.

Act in haste, repent at your leisure.

Now it gets interesting. The Senate's even more edgy about the bill than the House was...they prolly won't do anything until after the holidays. Meanwhile, Obama's approval rating continues to drop and his influence lessens. The House has always been his bitch...the Senate's a different story.

 

[amicus]

It was quite a scene to observe, Tom. The vote stayed tied or up or down, one or two, once the numbers reached 200 on each side.

It remained very close or tied up until about 212 each and I am not sure what I detected in the demeanor of the Chamber, almost like a group breath holding at times with nervous outbreaks of sound now and again.

Then, excitement and loud cheering as the vote approached and then surpassed the necessary 218.

I can't imagine the arm-twisting, or, as one pundit put it, the 'arm-breaking' that went on behind the scenes.

I hope you are correct in your assessment of the Senate, I am torn between the rumors I hear and read and the stated determination to get, 'something' passed in this session.

It appears that it will now slop over into 2010 (hey, first time I typed that as a date), and perhaps celebrated Obama style at the State of the Union address.

Dunno...

Amicus

 

[Stella_Omega]

yes indeed. We need to pass a comprehensive health care bill.

People are dying while fuckwads like you waffle and bitch and try to pretend it isn't about the petty power.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

yes indeed. We need to pass a comprehensive health care bill.

People are dying while fuckwads like you waffle and bitch and try to pretend it isn't about the petty power.

It's about power and only power. They (the politicians) don't give a flying crap about your health! Only about taking over 18% of the US economy. The bill does not improve healthcare at all. It doesn't even lower premiums. It doesn't even guarantee that everyone would have coverage. The only thing it guarantees is that the government will now have the power to decide, not you.

Oh, it does guarantee one thing...that our children and our children's children will be paying through the nose for this fiasco until they day the government decides that they should die.

 

[Liar]

Anyone care to educate an ignorant foreigner?

The House passed a bill. Ok, done.

The Senate is feffing about with another bill, and will or will not pass it, depending on Joe the Plutocrat. But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that another bill gets passed there. By all estimates, a less progressive bill.

What does either of those mean, in regards to whatever bill Obama finally signs? From what I understand, the final product is a merging/compromise between thiose two.

Which one carries more weight? And is there more voting after that? Should the reaction to today's news be "Who cares? This thing lives or dies with the Rep's filibuster anyway."

 

[TE999]

Anyone care to educate an ignorant foreigner?

The House passed a bill. Ok, done.

The Senate is feffing about with another bill, and will or will not pass it, depending on Joe the Plutocrat. But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that another bill gets passed there. By all estimates, a less progressive bill.

What does either of those mean, in regards to whatever bill Obama finally signs? From what I understand, the final product is a merging/compromise between thiose two.

Which one carries more weight? And is there more voting after that? Should the reaction to today's news be "Who cares? This thing lives or dies with the Rep's filibuster anyway."

What it means is that whatever finally arrives on the POTUS's desk will bear absolutely no resemblance to what just squeaked by in the House and what will finally limp out of the Senate. Both versions then go to other committees for final drafting, all the while running the gauntlet of every special interest group with a dog in the fight and Congressmen and/or Senators in their hip pocket.

There's an old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. The final bill will be a mutant camel.

 

[TxRad]

What it means is that whatever finally arrives on the POTUS's desk will bear absolutely no resemblance to what just squeaked by in the House and what will finally limp out of the Senate. Both versions then go to other committees for final drafting, all the while running the gauntlet of every special interest group with a dog in the fight and Congressmen and/or Senators in their hip pocket.

There's an old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. The final bill will be a mutant camel.

I thought it was an elephant, which is a mouse built to government specs.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

And it will have so many earmarks that the cost will be astronomical and will increase the national debt ten fold. It will eventually bankrupt America.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Let me see. The House approved a compromise bill at $847 billions. Right.

From The Times of London this morning...

Barack Obama's $1.2 trillion healthcare reform bill passes first hurdle


It seems the cost increased a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in one day. Think about what it will do over 10 years.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Anyone care to educate an ignorant foreigner?

The House passed a bill. Ok, done.

The Senate is feffing about with another bill, and will or will not pass it, depending on Joe the Plutocrat. But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that another bill gets passed there. By all estimates, a less progressive bill.

What does either of those mean, in regards to whatever bill Obama finally signs? From what I understand, the final product is a merging/compromise between thiose two.

Which one carries more weight? And is there more voting after that? Should the reaction to today's news be "Who cares? This thing lives or dies with the Rep's filibuster anyway."

The conflicted bills go to a conference committee that creates a 3rd bill, if both houses of Congress agree on the compromise bill it goes to Obama for approval or veto.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Let me see. The House approved a compromise bill at $847 billions. Right.

From The Times of London this morning...

Barack Obama's $1.2 trillion healthcare reform bill passes first hurdle


It seems the cost increased a quarter of a TRILLION dollars in one day. Think about what it will do over 10 years.

The Times of London is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News International.....hardly an unbiased voice in any debate - if you're striving for accuracy it would be well to choose a source that has some validity.....
This is the same trouble Mon Ami has: he listens and watches Rupert's FAUX NEWS too much.....no credibility.....

 

[Liar]

The conflicted bills go to a conference committee that creates a 3rd bill, if both houses of Congress agree on the compromise bill it goes to Obama for approval or veto.

By simple majority?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

By simple majority?

The Senate requires 60-40 to pass anything, and the Democrats do not have 60 votes to pass the bill. Plus the bills have significant and controversial differences, and the respective houses arent expected to compromise easily. Several Democrat senators are up for re-election in unfriendly states.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by JAMESBJOHNSON
The conflicted bills go to a conference committee that creates a 3rd bill, if both houses of Congress agree on the compromise bill it goes to Obama for approval or veto.

Originally Posted by Liar
By simple majority?

The Senate requires 60-40 to pass anything, and the Democrats do not have 60 votes to pass the bill. Plus the bills have significant and controversial differences, and the respective houses arent expected to compromise easily. Several Democrat senators are up for re-election in unfriendly states.

A simple majority would be needed to pass the bill, but sixty votes would be needed to end a filibuster that the GOP would probably stage if they want to shut down the bill, which they do.

I believe a substantial majority of the population are opposed to the Obama/Pelosi bill, and some who voted in favor may be sending out resumes a year from now.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Health company winners, losers in U.S. House bill

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted 220-215 on Saturday to pass legislation overhauling the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system.

The Senate must also vote on its version of a bill, which is not expected until December at the earliest, and both chambers would then meet to work out a final measure.

Following are some of the winners and losers in the U.S. healthcare industry based on language in the House bill.

Well, it truly looks as if the price of the "Healthcare" bill is skyrocketing as we speak?

I have seen quotes of at least three different cost...$850 billion, $1.2 trillion and now $2.5 trillion. It would appear to me that no one knows how much this fascist takeover of 18% our economy will cost the American Taxpayer!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The Times of London is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News International.....hardly an unbiased voice in any debate - if you're striving for accuracy it would be well to choose a source that has some validity.....
This is the same trouble Mon Ami has: he listens and watches Rupert's FAUX NEWS too much.....no credibility.....

It may be unbiased, Dragon, but I have no problem believing the number is not going to be $847 Billions. It will end up being a lot more.

As I see the debate, the issues are, free medical care for illegals, abortions (how the hell did that get in there?) and the "public option".

Do the math. $847,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 Americans over 10 years is $275 per person per year. Currently private, individual health care for a family is about $4800 per year. It just don't add up.

 

[TxRad]

It may be unbiased, Dragon, but I have no problem believing the number is not going to be $847 Billions. It will end up being a lot more.

As I see the debate, the issues are, free medical care for illegals, abortions (how the hell did that get in there?) and the "public option".

Do the math. $847,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 Americans over 10 years is $275 per person per year. Currently private, individual health care for a family is about $4800 per year. It just don't add up.

Try taking the insurance companies profits out of it and see what you come up with.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It may be unbiased, Dragon, but I have no problem believing the number is not going to be $847 Billions. It will end up being a lot more.

As I see the debate, the issues are, free medical care for illegals, abortions (how the hell did that get in there?) and the "public option".

Do the math. $847,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 Americans over 10 years is $275 per person per year. Currently private, individual health care for a family is about $4800 per year. It just don't add up.

Add a set of three more zeros to the $847 billion...$847,000,000,000

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny_Jackson
It may be unbiased, Dragon, but I have no problem believing the number is not going to be $847 Billions. It will end up being a lot more.

As I see the debate, the issues are, free medical care for illegals, abortions (how the hell did that get in there?) and the "public option".

Do the math. $847,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 Americans over 10 years is $275 per person per year. Currently private, individual health care for a family is about $4800 per year. It just don't add up.

Add a set of three more zeros to the $847 billion...$847,000,000,000

847,000,000,000/300,000,000 = 2,824.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny_Jackson
It may be unbiased, Dragon, but I have no problem believing the number is not going to be $847 Billions. It will end up being a lot more.

As I see the debate, the issues are, free medical care for illegals, abortions (how the hell did that get in there?) and the "public option".

Do the math. $847,000,000 divided by 300,000,000 Americans over 10 years is $275 per person per year. Currently private, individual health care for a family is about $4800 per year. It just don't add up.




847,000,000,000/300,000,000 = 2,824.

Divided by 10 = $283 dollars a year. Except you will only really have coverage from the "healthcare" plan for seven of the first 10 years.

So 2824 / 7 = 403 in the first 10 years.

$403 is not the premium for coverage though, it's the cost of the legislation per person per year. Premiums are on top of these and don' figure into the cost of the legislation as the individual will be pay those, not taxpayers.

Like I keep saying, the legislation(s) of "healthcare" doesn't promise to lower your costs, doesn't promise that you will be covered, doesn't promise there will even be a doctor for you too see, it just takes money from the taxpayers and allows the looters in congress to decide what to do with it. Oh, and if you don't get insurance, doesn't matter why, you go to jail.

 

[cloudy]

Oh, and if you don't get insurance, doesn't matter why, you go to jail.

This is just too blatantly wrong to let pass.

The bill provides for a fine if you don't have insurance. Nothing in there about jail time.

Nice try at fearmongering, though.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeb_Carter
Oh, and if you don't get insurance, doesn't matter why, you go to jail.

This is just too blatantly wrong to let pass.

The bill provides for a fine if you don't have insurance. Nothing in there about jail time.

Nice try at fearmongering, though.

Cloudy, I hope you are aware that if you are assessed a fine and can't or won't pay it, you go to jail.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy, I hope you are aware that if you are assessed a fine and can't or won't pay it, you go to jail.

Not always.

You go to court, and if you can't pay the fine, they put you through a payment process, and you can pay as little as $10 a month. I know this for a fact.

So, no. Jail time is only likely if you're a complete doofus.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Cloudy, I hope you are aware that if you are assessed a fine and can't or won't pay it, you go to jail.

Not always.

You go to court, and if you can't pay the fine, they put you through a payment process, and you can pay as little as $10 a month. I know this for a fact.

So, no. Jail time is only likely if you're a complete doofus.

It has been a long time, but I have been arrested many times. When I went to court and was offered the option of a fine or jail, I was always unasble to pay the fine, so I went to jail. That's how fines are enforced. What good is assessing a fine if the convicted party is able to refuse to pay it?