TPMDC
Pelosi To Unveil Health Care Bill This Morning--To Crowd Of Tea Partiers?
Brian Beutler | October 29, 2009, 9:14AM
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Share
Send to a friend!
As announced yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats will unveil the health care bill they plan to bring to the floor this morning. The long awaited legislation will come in at under $900 billion. Like the Senate bill, its public option will reimburse providers at negotiated rates--though unlike in the Senate bill, states will not be allowed to opt out.
Pelosi had pushed in recent days for a more robust public option, which would have saved more money. To make up for those lost savings, the House bill will lower the Medicaid threshold to 150 percent of the poverty line (it was originally expected to cover everybody below 133 percent of poverty).
The employer and individual mandates will be more robust than in the Senate bill, and, as a result, the bill is expected to cover millions more Americans. The $900 billion will be covered by a mix of taxes on high-income earners, industry contributions and savings wrung from existing government health care programs. That means it will not expand the deficit for at least the first 10 years.
One key question we'll be looking at is whether that means it's projected to increase the deficit after a decade. An earlier version of Senate legislation was projected to reduce the deficit in the long term by including an excise tax on high-end health care plans. The House bill's financing scheme, however, is significantly different.
Oh. And did I mention there'll be tea partiers, too? Yup. Good fun all around. We'll be reporting back throughout the morning.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- Another Huckabee Pardon
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- CBO: Health Care Reform Will Lower Out-Of-Pocket Burden For Most Consumers
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Family Guy Mocks Chris Matthews' Inflated Ego
- Latest High-Flying Accused Ponzi Schemer Has Ties To Indiana Guv
- Limbaugh: Obama Is 'Wimpy Little Man-Child'
- Obama Issues New Orders On Afghanistan
- Why Are Dem Voters Now Less Motivated Than Republicans?
- Dems Add Entitlement Reform To Packed Agenda Ahead of 2010 Elections
- Huckabee Cites System's 'Failures' In Response To Washington Police Killings
- Gibbs: Social Office Not Problem With Dinner Crashers
- How Clemmons Went From Prisoner To Alleged Cop Killer -- And Why It Matters For Mike Huckabee
- Rep. Hinchey: Bush Purposely Let Bin Laden Escape To Justify Iraq War
- Radio Host Bill Press: Glenn Beck Is A 'Ticking Time Bomb' Who Will 'Explode In The Face Of Roger Ailes'
- Bachmann: Just Over A Year Ago, The Private Economy Was 100% Private
- Progressives (and Obama) are Doing Better Than We Think -- and We Won't Know What We've Got 'Til It's Gone
- Not Getting Distracted
- Why Have We Subjugated Ourselves?
- Obstructionism Trumps Transparency
- Jeff Goldberg Faults Obama For Suggesting Settlement Expansion Leads To Violence
- Progressives (and Obama) are Doing Better Than We Think -- and We Won't Know What We've Got 'Til It's Gone
- A Dime In My Pocket
- Great Moments in CNN Journalism
- Return to Sender: Feigning Indifference & Losing My Religion
- The Pivot
- Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
KY Yellow Dog
October 29, 2009 9:22 AM
To make up for those lost savings, the House bill will lower the Medicaid threshold to 150 percent of the poverty line (it was originally expected to cover everybody below 133 percent of poverty).
Huh? Going from 133 percent to 150 percent of poverty is RAISING the threshold.
Did you mean LOWERING the threshold FROM 150 percent TO 133 percent?
If so, please clarify what those two income percentages represent in actual dollars. If I remember correctly, poverty level for a family of four is less than $20K.
How many four-person families can afford health insurance on $30K (150%), much less $26K (133%)?
Better an opt-out than yet another fucking of the working poor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 29, 2009 10:04 AM in reply to KY Yellow Dog
I find this sentence too incomprehensible even to know what, if anything, I should be indignant about.
Are they actually making more people eligible for Medicaid or fewer? And in either case, what's the logic that says doing that would save money? Are they putting more people into Medicaid because its cheaper to pay for that coverage than to subsidize private insurance for them? Or are they "saving" money by the subtrofuge that people not eligible for Medicaid will be able to pay for private health insurance when, in fact, they'll just end up uninsured? One's a good thing. The other is about as represhensible as any of the stuff that had people upset at Reid or Baucus back before Reid became the hero in this story.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
exregis
October 29, 2009 10:39 AM in reply to KY Yellow Dog
Lowering the threshold to Medicaid means making it easier for people to get Medicaid. That is a separate issue from the test that helps to determine the threshold. You have confused the threshold with the threshold test.
In this case, lowering the threshold means allowing people who make more money to be eligible, and making more money means that one makes a larger percentage of any fixed amount, including the poverty level.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 29, 2009 9:44 AM
Conservative Democrats need to go the way of Conservative Republcians. Afterall, supporting something that saves money is less important than saving the wishes of the insurance industry. That is what was chosen, what was best for the insurance industry, not the budget, and not the American People.
Conservatives, regardless of party, continue to promise one thing, yet only deliver industry support and laissez faire policies that brought us our current messs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 29, 2009 10:10 AM
What savings? Where is anyone saving money?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
October 29, 2009 10:29 AM in reply to Odel Roo
One thing a lot of folks just don't get:
We do not care about the cost. This always happens when it comes to helping Americans.
All during the last 8 years no one cared about the money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
October 29, 2009 10:12 AM
Nothing worth a damn is going to make it to President Obama's desk to sign.
The Democratic Party is hopelessly split; even on issues such as this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/28/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5439102.shtml
Take out the section of the bill that helps the "disabled"? Or we'll kill reform (an implied threat)??
Last time I checked, "public support for the helpless, that ARE helpless through no fault of their own" was a Democratic Party value.
WTF??????????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 29, 2009 10:18 AM in reply to willia451
great link. Thanks.
and let's face it, the Democrats are becomging a more conservative party. Less for the people, and more pro-business
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 29, 2009 11:07 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Really? They're more conservative and beholden to business now than they were in the 90s? I think it's quite the contrary. The slow rightward drift has ended and a slow leftward drift has begun. The DLC and Third Way are discredited and diminished. The Blue Dogs are still extant but slowly shrinking as a percentage of the two caucuses as a whole. There was no such thing as a the progressive caucus in the 90s.
I doubt that the party will ever get back as far to the left as it did in the 30s, but those were extraordinary times.
It's going to be slow and fitful. Whoever the president or presidtial nominee is will rarely be at the leading edge of liberalism. The drift is going to be like trying to watch the minute hand on a clock move. I doubt that there will be much change in people's self-description of themselves as liberal or conservative or moderate. But I do think that, over the next couple of decades, there will be a lot of people who call themselves "conservative" who will be in favor of things that would be considered anathma to even non-insane conservatives today. That shift will happen, and is happening, and the party's politics will follow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 29, 2009 11:41 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
They're more conservative and beholden to business now than they were in the 90s?
I don't care to argue gradations of "more". I believe there is a resurgence of liberal values (as the affects of free trade and laissez faire conservatism continues, I think liberal ideas will gain more traction), no doubt. Will the democratic party always be their home. I'm not sure. Will the Democratic party move more to center right as the Republicans move further right? Probably. Afterall, money and the media are there. I think we live in interesting times.
But then, I don't think Obama lives very far from the DLC. I think the DLC saw a win/win situation as far as Obama and Clinton.
But really, this discussion requires defining alot of terms and assumptions. Like, you actively dislike the netroots, correct? I think I've seen you dismiss them. I could be wrong. Yet, I think they are part of the liberal base. An active part. Democrats seem to be more and more hostile towards them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
October 29, 2009 11:07 AM in reply to willia451
The key to your confusion is accepting the premise that these senators (Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, and Ben Nelson) are Democrats in the first place (we know that Lieberman isn't). It would seem that these are first class DINO's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 29, 2009 10:16 AM
ok... here is one for you. At a cost of a smidgen or sounder $900 billion for the coverage of a reported 36 million folks. Some quick math and I may be screwing this up so correct me if i'm wrong - $900,000,000,000 / 36,000,000 = $25,000 per insured.
Wouldn't it be just cheaper to buy a policy on each of these folks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 29, 2009 10:19 AM in reply to Odel Roo
that's 900b over ten years
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Odel Roo
October 29, 2009 10:38 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Thanks... it just didn't sound right. Ina a earlier comment you wrote "Afterall, supporting something that saves money is less important than saving the wishes of the insurance industry."
Where are the savings you refer to going to be coming from?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 29, 2009 10:43 AM in reply to Odel Roo
the PO Pelosi was pushing prior to giving in to the conservative democrats would have saved the govt an additional $85 billion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 29, 2009 10:25 AM
I love the "Fiscal Conservative" Tea-Baggers that would rather see the government and the people give more money to Insurance companies than be fiscally responsible and force some regulation and competition.
The "Free-Market Conservatives" should be the ones fighting to repeal the Insurance Industry's Anti-trust exemption.
Yet, the definition of any type of conservative lately has become "Anti-Success for the country because it might reflect well on the President."
To them I say, "If repubs just worked together w/ the Democrats and the President, The economy coming out of recession might reflect well on them too."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 29, 2009 10:29 AM in reply to _jonny_5_
in the parlance of most rappers from the late eighties and early nineties, word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
October 29, 2009 10:52 AM in reply to _jonny_5_
The Tea Baggers were okay getting screwed by Bush's tax cuts for the rich at he put in place in 2001 to the tune of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. None of them benefited from that. Then he started his his unfunded wars and no bid contracts to his buddies. None of them benefited from that. Then the deficits skyrocketed for 8 years and there was nary a peep from the Tea Baggers. Now they have found their fiscally conservative, budget conscious, real American selves when our new president is trying to actually undo the damage and do something good for them and the rest of us. Maybe they need glasses and hearing aids to help them understand the reality around them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 29, 2009 1:48 PM in reply to ivy22
"Maybe they need glasses and hearing aids to help them understand the reality around them."
They'd be better off w/ a Lobotomy...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?