Landmark Health Insurance Bill Passes House

theodp writes "A hastily-crafted amendment imposing tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies helped pave the way for the House to approve the Democrats' bill to overhaul the nation's health insurance system. 'It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans,' said Rep. John Dingell. Rep. Candice Miller disagreed, calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding' bill. The 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation passed by a vote of 220-215 and moves on for Senate debate, which is expected to begin in several days." Update — 11/08 at 13:45 GMT by SS: Changed vote totals above to reflect the actual bill vote. The 240-194 number was for the abortion restrictions amendment.

Comments

What's in it?

[serps]

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.

I'm not from the US, but isn't that the main bit of you guys' healthcare system that's most in need of fixing?

In my country, pre-existing conditions just mean that you can't claim anything for 12 months after joining. It doesn't affect premiums or anything, and no health insurance provider can reject your application.

So, I guess, welcome to the 20th century!

Re:What's in it?

[Igarden2]

I forgot to mention the ultimate hypocrisy in this bill. Every member of the legislature is exempt from the bill. They have their own luxury system that is fully paid for by the taxpayers for life.

Re:What's in it?

[Rick17JJ]

My medical insurance has recently gone up to $995 per month, now that I have just recently reached the age of 55. That is almost $12,000 per year that I am paying for medical insurance, just for myself. That is with a $1,250 deductible and no dental coverage.

I once tried to switch to a less expensive plan, but Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona would not let me switch. I have never had any significant health problems, other than being somewhat overweight and having very slight high blood pressure. It was only during the last year, that I finally needed to start taking a mild diuretic to lower my slightly high blood pressure. I am a non-smoker in good health who walks 45 minutes per day, wears my seatbelt, and does not eat junk food. Despite that, I need to pay 1/3 of my net take home income (after taxes) on Medical insurance. How much would I have to pay if I had more significant health problems?

I would like to see more willingness for Congress to ignore the lobbyists, and work on the causes of it being so expensive such as tort reform, big pharma, and the insurance industry.

Is this bill going to make my insurance less expensive, or perhaps subsidise my insurance?

Our government is already spending way more than it collects for taxes, so is this something which our country can afford without having to inflate our money supply more or borrow even money from China and elsewhere? I seem to recall Nancy Pelosi claiming that they had found some way to pay for it all. I have not really been following the news closely enough to know about those details.

I think I can I think I can

[betterunixthanunix]

Maybe the US will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in actually providing medical care to its citizens, instead of taking the, "find your own care" attitude.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[nanoakron]

Doesn't sound like they will.

So this new bill leaves 4% uncovered - that's 4% of nearly 300 million people!

Whereas the healthcare systems of all other civilised nations leave no-one uncovered. Not even the tramps in the street.

NB UK NHS user here - Our system has its faults, but at least one of those isn't "Sorry, we can't give you that treatment because you can't afford it...so just hurry up and die."

-Nano.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[JAlexoi]

A) Health care is a right, that is logically derived from the right to live. And the lack of the right to kill yourself.
B) You probably don't understand that a healthy person will contribute more to society than an unhealthy one. In my country, there is some abuse of the medical system, but we are ok to have it. Because we all understand, that that is what it takes to have a population that is not afraid to go to a doctor at an early stage of an illness(to have the illness shortened). Out of that, there are more healthy people that contribute more and longer in form of taxes and other common wealth.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[Raisey-raison]

When I hear comments about how it's not right that the government provides 'free' things I sometimes wonder what people are smoking. Look, health care is a necessity and because we have such an insanely high gini coefficient, without either employer or government help most households could simply not afford it. And yes people do DIE when they lack proper health care, its not just a matter of going to the ER. They will stabilize you but not provide long term treatment. Good luck getting chemotherapy if you don't have insurance.

It's easy to go about limited government if you are in the top 25% in terms of income in the population. But median family income is $50,000. That is not a lot. How is a household in the 35% percentile earning $33,000 supposed to fork out $13,400 a year? And that figure is assuming that they get the same discount that a large business gets which for an individual is not going to happen.

Why don't the limited government crazies say the same thing about medicare? After all why should the government provide free services? The most f**ked up thing about it all is that those without insurance are expected to pay taxes (medicare tax) to provide other people with the very thing they lack.

And for those who love to go on about what the government should or should not do get this: Why do we spend over 4% of our GDP on defense and spend insane sums in Afghanistan and Iraq... ans: supposedly to protect our country. Now what does it mean to 'protect'. It means to prevent death and destruction. Well what is the point of spending $651.2 billion to maybe prevent an attack when way more people are suffering and dieing because of lack of adequate health care?????

The whole issue is insane. The free market simply does not work in health care. And I am some one who is pro free market. But at some point you have wake up and smell the coffee.

Re:I think I can I think I can

[VincentFreeman]

Health care in this country is about the best in the world.

That is a lie.

"The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is two-and-a-half times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland."

"Yet another study, cited in a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, looked at how well 19 developed countries succeeded in avoiding “preventable deaths,” such as those where a disease could be cured or forestalled. What Senator Shelby called “the best health care system” ranked in last place."

It's early, I'm lazy, but the facts match up. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/opinion/05kristof.html?em

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[SigILL]

Why should anything be rationed on any basis other than your ability to produce enough for society to afford it?

And why should your ability to produce enough for society be measured by how much money you have?

Re:12 million people excluded?

[mustafap]

>What's with the remaining 4%? How come not everyone will be covered?

That 4% will be lawyers.

Re:On behalf of rest of the civilized world

[Starlon]

For as long as I've read /. there has been news about health, whether that be some health related tech, a new life saving procedure, or some new finding in biology.

Slashdot is not just a news site. That's its primary motivation. Its secondary existence is the discussion, and for some that's their primary reason for returning to /.. There's a sense of quality to the discussion on this forum thanks to the system in place.

1.2T = 120B per year

[volt4ire]

Let's be clear: 1.2 Billion is the cost for 10 years, not 1 single upfront cost (like bailouts or emergency war funding supplementals)

A Step Into the Dark Ages

[TheMonkeyhouse]

so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill, everyone (except the fat insurance companies) admitted that things had to change, and so this is a start. however, the amendment restricting abortion coverage is HUGE step backwards and another reminder just how much the lunatic Religious Right has taken hold in the US. Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again. so close, but yet so far still to come.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[beelsebob]

Why should someone who is sick, and hence can't produce anything for society not be allowed to get good quality health care that will lead to them being a productive member of society?

Re:Strikers Vow

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the adults also know that you cannot rely on the private sector to provide for people. Capitalism isn't about compassion.

Re:Bill Itself: 220-215

[Anne Thwacks]

rationed on any basis other than your ability to produce enough for society to afford it

The logic here in the UK is that

a) You might be able to pay for it, but not when you are sick

b) People contribute to society in other ways than materially

c) Desperate people may be driven to commit crimes "I stole it to pay for my sick other/child's operation"

d) The disease might spread to _ME_

My Issue Is...

[forbin_meet_hal]

...when did "health insurance" become conflated with "health care"? You buy insurance to ensure that you can get past some kind of catastrophic event, say, if you total your car. I don't expect AllState to pay for my gas, tune-ups, etc. It's about spreading risk, rather than a mechanism to take money from one guy and give to another to that you can buy what you want. HSAs for routine procedures is the way to go. Keep the insurance markets competitive and targeted towards what "insurance" actually means IN EVERY OTHER INSTANCE WHERE IT IS APPLIED!

Pushed just far enough

[AlpineR]

The close vote is intentional. The leaders realize that this is a once in a generation opportunity to reform healthcare, so they're going to push that reform as far as they can. They could propose some really minor changes that everybody agrees with. They could propose some really radical changes that almost nobody agrees with. Or they could push the biggest change they could get without failing.

As for the party split, the Constitution does not entitle all political parties to equal happiness. In a time when reality has a liberal bias, the wishes of the electorate are reflected in the composition of the legislative bodies. Aside from their role in achieving a majority of votes in Congress, the Republicans are no more entitled to appeasement than are the Greens, Libertarians, or Communists.

Re:Strikers Vow

[amiga3D]

I rely on me to provide for me. Government isn't about compassion either. It's about control. We've pretty much abandoned the intent of the constitution. The federals were never supposed to have this much power. I think it's time for the States to step up and take some of this power away from them.

Re:Strikers Vow

[Laukei]

The 1950s called, they want their red scare back.

Seriously though, you need to get a grip. People who are ill are by definition less able than those around them. Why should it fall to them to help themselves? Do you actually just strive for the destruction of society? If so, there's a group of people in the Middle East who'd love to hear from you.

We have national healthcare in the UK, and, having had both parents working within it for 25 years apiece, it's not slavery. Are the police slaves? The fire department? Your logic is flawed.

Laukei

Re:Strikers Vow

[value_added]

You can start by explaining how a multi-trillion dollar government program is going to make things better. Perhaps, you can cite the dozens or perhaps hundreds of other programs the government has run that efficiently made things better?

Sigh.

Has it occcurred to you that the argument implicit in your questions, the One Argument To Rule Them All (or, to use Ronald Reagan's words, "Government is the problem"), is not an argument at all? It's an idealogy. And one that's been gradually discredited since the 1980s, and especially so of late.

That said, the following quotation should address your questions about governemnts programs that run efficiently or make things better:

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity
generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of
Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal
water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated
channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was
going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of
Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined
as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept
accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build
by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly
stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the
Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal
Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be
sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public
school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to
the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the
Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals
which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back
home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence
because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's
inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks
to the local police department. And then I log on to the internet --
which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Administration and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how
SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything
right.

Credits to the orginal poster or writer.

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[Eightbitgnosis]

We destroyed perfectly working cars and then gave out freshly printed money to replace them. This is fiscally sound?

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[sycodon]

"under the watch of Republican presidents"

Repeat after me: "Congress is the only government branch that can raise money and spend it."

Re:It's Not About Health, It's About Control

[RealGrouchy]

Once the government is paying for your health care, they can pretty much mandate what you eat, what you smoke, what you drink, how long you live, etc. Hey, the repercussions of "bad" behavior are on their nickel, right?

Funny you mention that. We have universal health care up here in Canada, and last time I checked, we can still buy cigarettes and unhealthy food, we can buy alcohol at a younger age than you can, and anything that is controlled as illegal (e.g. marijuana) is only illegal because of pressure the freedom-loving Americans.

- RG>

Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems

[NeutronCowboy]

Then why is this called "Obamacare" by the Republicans and Conservatives?

Re:Banning illegal aliens is shortsighted

[TarPitt]

How will illegal non-citizens support the government program when they are (1) not paying income or social security/medicare taxes

WRONG!!

Very few illegal immigrants are paid cash under the table. Most are paid in the same fashion as legal employees, and have taxes and social security withheld.

In fact, illegal immigrants are a net contributor to the social security fund, as many use fake social security numbers for which they will never be able to collect benefits:

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articl
Illegal immigrants pay taxes, too

He calculates that illegal immigrants contributed $428 billion dollars to the nation's $13.6 trillion gross domestic product in 2006. That number assumes illegal immigrants are 30 percent less productive than other workers.

The Social Security Administration estimates that about three-quarters of illegal workers pay taxes that contribute to the overall solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

"Overall, any type of immigration is a net positive to Social Security. The more people working and paying into the system, the better," Hinkle said. "It does help the system remain solvent."