TPMDC

House Passes Health Care Bill 220-215

Christina Bellantoni | November 7, 2009, 11:19PM

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Read More

Barack Obama, Blue Dogs, Health Care, Nancy Pelosi, Public Option, White House

Share

Fark

Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

The House of Representatives has passed a bill calling for comprehensive reforms to the American health care system and universal insurance coverage, marking a major milestone in the battle for health care reform.

It's the first time in the nation's history a chamber of Congress has gotten this far as the House passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act by a vote of 220-215.

The vote came after President Obama made a last-minute appeal to his party during the House Democratic Caucus, asking them to "answer the call" of history.

Democrat after Democrat cited history on the House floor during the rare Saturday session, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) saying generations of Americans have wanted health care reform.

"Today the call will be answered," Pelosi said, citing the late Sen. Teddy Kennedy who called health care reform the "great unfinished business of our society."

Earlier in the day, lawmakers were getting Pelosi's signature on their copies of the bill.

All but one of the Republicans opposed the bill after a day of debate, joining 39 Democrats who voted 'No.' Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) was the only Republican to vote for it.

In addition to including a public option, the bill calls for a number of major reforms, which you can understand in broad strokes by reading this post.

All day Saturday, Obama's Organizing for America campaign arm run by the Democratic National Committee was asking supporters to help at the last minute via email and Twitter.

"House vote on health reform is imminent. This is a once-in-a-generation moment. Be part of it," the DNC tweeted to the Obama feed's more than 2.6 million followers. It directed supporters to a page allowing them to directly tweet their lawmakers.

OFA also asked 13 million supporters on the email list to call their Republican representatives and ask for their votes.

The White House is sure to hail the House vote as historic, but there are many more steps ahead before a health care bill makes it to Obama's desk. Follow TPMDC's health care coverage here.

Additional reporting by Brian Beutler.

Other Stories Featured at TPMDC

What Did We Learn From Saturday's Health Care Vote

Gavin Newsom Throws Tantrum In First Interview Since Dropping Gov. Bid

Spokesman: Schumer Open To Public Option Negotiations, But They Haven't Started

Lieberman Repeats Claim That Public Option Not Part Of 2008 Presidential Campaign

Join the Conversation!

137 comments

Recommend Recommend (3)

November 7, 2009 11:23 PM

and hey, it's also what passed for "bipartisan" these days.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

MonicaDickey

November 8, 2009 1:58 AM in reply to nova voter

For sure! All day I was wondering if this would actually go through... This is amazing! I was sure they'd chicken out and let another chance at health care for everyone slip away for another few decades. :)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 10:22 AM in reply to MonicaDickey

.
Was this a victory or semi failure for Democrats?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=6452

.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to JeffB

I have a feeling I'm going to be reading the words 'sweeping', 'historic' and 'victory' a lot over the next couple days. It makes me a little ill. In fact, single payer would've been sweeping. This bill is not. It's incremental. It's cautious. It builds on the existing system. I don't see how it's going to significantly reduce cost and find it hard to get too bubbly about it before seeing how it all pans out in reality. Devil's in the details. Of course it's better than nothing. Much better, in fact. But 'sweeping'? We'll see.
If Pelosi allowed a retrograde conservative amendment, she should've allowed at least one progressive amendment. I'd have opted for the Kucinich Amendment, which opens the door to state-based single payer experimentation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Partisancheese

November 9, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to MonicaDickey

The battle's far from over. There's still the Senate. http://www.newsy.com/videos/house_health_care_bill_approved. I love it how this cocky conservative commentator is so sure that it won't go through the Senate in the video.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:24 PM

That was a nail bitter...lol

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:43 PM in reply to kash79

BTW

Congratulations Obama and Pelosi. Tonight, despite the reservations, is a big win Democrats.
More importantly, the bill and the reform lives another day for another fight. Nothing is more important.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:25 PM

Disappointed in those 39...

but happy to see a smile on Nancy's face at the end of the night!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:00 AM in reply to coolsocks

While I am fully sobered knowing one in four democrats voted in favor of Stupak amendment, I was thrilled for Pelosi especially knowing the hatred for her on the right

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:22 AM in reply to kash79

I can't imagine that there won't be a lawsuit against the Stupak amendment if it makes it into the compromise bill. Makes me wonder how many pieces of silver Rahm Emanuel had to pay to get Cao's vote. Also makes me wonder about the possible pitfalls for reproductive health rights if such a lawsuit occurred. I can see the smile on Antonin Scalia's face now just anticipating the fun.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:16 AM in reply to Verified

Cao is only a Congressman because he was lucky enough to run against the disgraced William Jefferson in a heavily Democratic district, a one-termer for sure, unless he can somehow parlay this vote into something to campaign on in 2010.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to sTiVo

Countdown to the Palinites looking to purge Cao from the party …3,2,1…

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:53 AM in reply to Verified

I actually commend Cao on is vote. It took courage for him to do the right thing. He has been for health care from the beginning and I am sure he was under pressure from the thugs but good on him. Maybe we need to recruit him on our side.

I love our President and Nancy Pelosi. I am one of those loyalists who always felt we would get it done - thanks to our President and a fabulous Speaker of the House.

With all their faults, the Dems rock!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

November 8, 2009 10:18 AM in reply to lousgirl84

Not so much. He's in the reverse of the quandry some of the Blue Dogs are in (and that the rest of them--wrongly--think they're in). His district went for Obama by 3:1. He made it in only because his predecessor was convicted of graft after being found with 80K in cash stuffed in his freezer. His predecessor was actually reelected while under indictment and only conviction got him tossed.

He's toast unless he doesn't make himself the most liberal Republican in the House since the Great Purge under Gingrich.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

November 8, 2009 10:19 AM in reply to Verified

I'm sure it was unintentional, but don't you think using the "30 pieces of silver" metaphor when talking about a Jew is a little bit tacky?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 11:34 AM in reply to kash79

Stupak: A medical condition (subset of sepsis) resulting from unsafe - unnecessarily so - back alley abortions as a result of the "Stupak Amendment" to the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:26 PM

To paraphrase my wife on our wedding day, "It isn't perfect, but it can be improved".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:46 AM in reply to Dave Adams

ROFLMAO!! Now that's a way to start a good marriage

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:29 PM

Next stop - the Senate : : :

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:30 PM

Eric Cantor said: "There will be one bipartisan vote today, and that is against Speaker Pelosi's overhaul of health care. There will not be a bipartisan vote for this bill." sorry Eric but i guess youre a liar. Rep Cao voted for the bill. you remember him, a Republican? guess you need to do a better job at being a 'minority' whip. harhar.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Armageddon T. Thunderbird

November 8, 2009 3:30 AM in reply to breakspear

After what the Party of Limbaugh pulled in NY...I'll bet he switches parties.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

November 9, 2009 12:04 AM in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird

We don't want him -- he is much more conservative than our worst Blue Dogs. He voted for this bill to restrict abortions for women -- he was perfectly willing to let his constituents die if the bill provided medical care for to allow women to make their own reproductive decisions -- and to save his political life.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

November 7, 2009 11:30 PM

Cao will probably run as a Democrat in 2010 - supposedly Rahm has been working on his vote all day.

Once Pelosi has her 219 it didn't matter who voted where, so I assume Reps who were wary of how this would play at home were then given freedom to vote against it. I bet Cao's vote played a large part in this.

Now the pressure is on the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:55 AM in reply to Walter Mitty

Mitty how do you know that. Do you have an inside source there who told you this?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:08 AM in reply to lousgirl84

He's just making shit up as usual! There was no deal with Cao. Cao voted for the bill because he won by accident in a district that went 75% for Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:12 AM in reply to FreeRider

I was really trying to be facetious with him but it didn't translate. I never thought for a minute he knew anything. I am familiar with his posts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:29 AM in reply to lousgirl84

Oh, I know. I just wanted to add my non-facetious 2 cents, just in case.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

igotmyreasons

November 7, 2009 11:32 PM

NY Times doesn't have a story up yet....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:32 PM

Today's proceedings highlight the challenges for the Obama administration to walk such a thin line. We won by 2 democratic votes, forget the one republican he was willing to blow with the breeze.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:35 PM in reply to kash79

By the way, I'm willing to assume as of now some of the progressive might have voted against bill on principle knowing the bill would pass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

November 7, 2009 11:38 PM in reply to kash79

NY Massa voted against the bill for one, he said he's single payer or bust. He seems pretty resolute though, I'm not sure his vote could be counted on if need be as he was against the bill when the vote was still up in the air.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

November 7, 2009 11:49 PM in reply to kash79

Kucinich voted against it as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:58 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

Heh... that's exactly what I expect from that guy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:11 AM in reply to Walter Mitty

I'm sure he would have voted No even if he were the deciding vote on the bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 5:01 AM in reply to kash79

That guy is good for making noise, but not to be counted on when his vote is really needed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:39 AM in reply to hoos30

How republican of Kucinich. I like the man for his integrity and beliefs but they are not reality in this world we live in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

November 7, 2009 11:37 PM in reply to kash79

The final bill will be moved further right by the Senate bill, which means as long as the progressives hold, they should pick up blue dog votes. I think the blue dogs were allowed to vote against the bill once Pelosi secured her 219, especially when given the Cao cover. I think most would have voted in favor if their vote was necessary - it came down to local politics for them and how their vote would play in their district.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Nora

November 7, 2009 11:38 PM

What does this sentence mean? --> "It's the first time in the nation's history a chamber of Congress has gotten this far as the House passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act by a vote of 220-215."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:41 PM in reply to Nora

If you take it literally, it is flawed....;)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:40 PM

Anybody have a link to the roll call yet? I want to know how my rep voted...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:52 PM in reply to Orlando

Found it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:17 AM in reply to Orlando

Openleft has filtered list with dems only.

Stupak Bill:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15915/dems-who-voted-for-the-stupak-amendment-to-restrict-womens-rights

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

niw

November 8, 2009 12:36 AM in reply to kash79

If the Stupak bill was to be defeated, then the underline bill would of failed. It did not exclude exceptions to abortions that are in life threatening circumstances.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:42 PM

whoopppiiieeee!!!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:43 PM

whoopppiiieeee!!!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:43 PM

This will seem a walk in the park compared to what's to come from the Senate. Great start. Blue Dogs of the senate- please do it for the people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:36 AM in reply to Beagle

Blue dogs beware.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

November 7, 2009 11:53 PM

Dems voting against the bill -
Adler (NJ), Altmire, Baird, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Boucher, Boyd, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Edwards (TX), Gordon (TN), Griffith, Herseth Sandlin, Holden, Kissell, Kosmas, Kratovil, Kucinich, Markey (CO), Marshall, Massa, Matheson, McIntyre, McMahon, Melancon, Minnick, Murphy (NY), Nye, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:57 AM in reply to Walter Mitty

"Kucinich?"

I don't get it... did he think there would be any other way to get Single Payer than to get it through the House and to Reconciliation?

Realistically (and I HATE that too...) HR676 would be the BEST Public Option. But I can't believe the way Nancy Stiffed Weiner on her 2nd hand promise, if he didn't propose the amendment(in the 3200 committee) she'd let it come up on the floor.

SHAME on her! If a lawyer did that in private sector court, between even opposing lawyers, her career would be OVER.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 2:09 AM in reply to rhytonen

Yet more conservative ammendments were allowed. Check this out, concerning the Stupak Amendment:

“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,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in a late-night release. “Women won’t stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today.

read more here:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/07/flooor-stupak/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:56 AM in reply to Indie Pro

Nothing is ever good enough for your is it IndiePro? You are one of the most negative posters here, consistently.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 11:02 PM in reply to lousgirl84

The democratic leadership denies progressives and liberals all ammendments, liberals and progressives lay down for leadership and just go along, though they won nothing, and yet conservatives hold out and get allt hey want, and I'm suppose to be quiet?

You are the most worthless commenter because you are nothing more than a yes-man. That's worthless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 10:16 AM in reply to Indie Pro

excuse me IndiePro, but Cecille Richards can kiss my ass

She and her NARAL counterpart Nancy Keenan have known since July 1 that Stupak planned to hold the Bill hostage

and did NOTHING - same with the threat from Catholic Bishops - no mobilization of troops, no heat on any Dems, nothing but cheerleading for Leadership

and I fully expect them to now fundraise off of their own complicity - 'Choice is once again at risk, please help us continue the fight for working and low income women' blah, blah, blah

I agree with a good friend who commented that Yes indeed, we have won an historic battle that will bring some much needed relief, but half of our fellow soldiers were killed in the fight because others never fired a shot in their defense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 11:05 PM in reply to izzatxeaux

ah. blame everyone but those responsible. Nice

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

November 9, 2009 12:30 AM in reply to izzatxeaux

Agree NARAL made a stupid mistake -- they trusted Obama -- after all they had endorsed him in the primary.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:22 PM in reply to Indie Pro

No Kucinich Amendment either, allowing an automatic ERISA waiver for states that would like to experiment with single payer. (This is how single payer got started in Canada.) I'd be pretty pissed if I were Kucinich, given they allowed a floor vote on the Stupak Amendment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 11:04 PM in reply to Tanjaoui

leadership "stuck it" to liberals and progressives. They won nothing. They caved!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 7, 2009 11:56 PM

Our Iron Lady was beaming... it was a great thing to see. And, WHAT A RELIEF!

One down. Now it's your turn, Harry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bev

November 7, 2009 11:59 PM

thank you thank you thank you -
grandmother of two little ones with autism - who might now make it in and into the mainstream - with and for america
bev
manhattan beach, ca

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:05 AM

I hope the local parties of the Democrats who voted no are looking for primary challengers. After the many concessions made to the blue dogs, that any Democrat could still vote no galls me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:19 AM

Good cookies. Good fracking cookies.

Half the fight's over, guys. Let's keep the pressure up!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Walter Mitty

November 8, 2009 12:43 AM in reply to Kuyleh

More like 1/4 of the fight, as the Senate needs to pass their bill and then both would have to vote on the conference bill. Three key votes still outstanding. House support of the after-conference bill is far from a sure thing given how close this vote was.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:38 AM

Fracking cookies? Is that what you have been eating?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:39 AM

Let's see now, the bill barely passes, with the help of Bill Owen's votes, after he gets elected only because right-wing wackos kneecap his opponents. The 60th vote in the senate may come from Specter, who is a D only because the same goons went after him. How much do you think George Soros is donating to Pat Toomey to keep the Republican purge-surge moving?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:45 AM

Yo, Bachmann:
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:50 AM

When one has to call people "lunatic fringe, nutcases, right-wing wackos or racist" that only makes one look smaller. Why do you think that using insulting language makes your point stronger?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 2:35 AM in reply to Chrsiti

It's not insulting when it's the truth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:01 AM in reply to Chrsiti

Because it's the truth? Have you been on another Planet lately. You must have to even ask such a question

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:01 AM

POX news is reporting that AMA is reconsidering its endorsement to the bill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/amas-endorsement-house-health-care-sparks-internal-uprising/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:08 AM in reply to Beagle

I'd take it seriously as "news" if I see it elsewhere other than FIX Noise or WND.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:16 AM in reply to kash79

You're right...I should know better. Just got a little nervous :)- Thanks for reminder

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mary

November 8, 2009 9:02 AM in reply to kash79

Maybe on PMSnbc????

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hewhohasnoname

November 8, 2009 1:20 AM in reply to Beagle

This sounds like an uprising among some of the more conservative physicians who want to spoil Democratic advances on the issue.

I would guess that the AMA is highly unlikely to vote to withdraw their endorsement. It would be a PR nightmare for them, since, at the risk of losing credibility, they would have to explain why they are withdrawing their support from a bill that is overwhelmingly similar to the bill they endorsed; I'm sure they reviewed the bill prior to endorsing it.

The situation sounds similar to what happened with the AARP. Some conservative seniors left the organization, but most members have supported AARP's move. In fact, at one point AARP was on tv showing several boxes of petitions in support of the bill.

Even if the AMA does go as far as taking the dramatic (and risky) step of withdrawing their support, I'm sure many supportive physicians will come forward in support of the bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:09 AM in reply to Beagle

They lie!!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

benny 4 facts

November 8, 2009 10:10 AM in reply to Beagle

AND

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:19 AM

It's good to hear you watch "POX news" and "FIX Noise"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:25 AM

Look up the Mayo Clinics viewpoint on the healthcare bill. You may be enlightened.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:34 AM

In case you don't know, the Mayo Clinic is a world renowned hospital in Minnesota in which many people, including foreign royalty, receive exceptional care. Why are foreign royalty coming here to receive health care?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 4:30 AM in reply to Chrsiti

Foreign Royalty come here so you can lick their shoes and beg them to smile at you and pat you on the head. They come here to remind Americans that rich people are always more important than poor people even in a democracy. They come here to walk right past you to a healthier longer life by using the facilities right in your own backyard that you will never be allowed into a single day of your shorter more miserable life.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:37 AM in reply to hollywood

As a resident close to the Mayo Clinic I know many average and, yes, lower income people who have had the opportunity to be helped by the Mayo. I have seen many, many people get in to see doctors in a moments notice the next day. Will that happen after this health care bill is passed? You have no idea of which foreign royalty I spoke of. I am well informed on both sides of the issues. It is amazing the sarcastic tone many people have on these blogs. The word sarcasm comes from a Greek word that means "to tear flesh". I think that says a lot.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

VivaAmerica!

November 8, 2009 9:50 AM in reply to Chrsiti

What will happen when the health care bill is passed? Who is going to stop the Mayo Clinic from helping those people? Please show the part of the bill that will stop the Mayo Clinic from helping the poor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 11:02 AM in reply to VivaAmerica!

Enough of you logic!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to Chrsiti

I know the Jordanian royal family has availed itself of the Mayo Clinic. The problem isn't with the Mayo Clinic. It's great for people that happen to live near the Mayo Clinic or who can afford to be jetted in. Obviously, the Mayo Clinic is a great facility, and other hospitals and health care facilities can learn a lot by studying the way they deliver care. But that's a patch, not a fix for a systemic problem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:14 AM in reply to hollywood

Bingo!!!! Great post - is it making more sense to you now, Chrsti?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:30 AM in reply to lousgirl84

Nah, his response is that all Americans can receive affordable, life-saving treatment for catastrophic injuries and illnesses at the Mayo Clinic if they choose.

Of course, that response is flatly false, but it's his response.

While it's true that Mayo does provide "charity care" to a select few average Americans, it is able to do so precisely because it is such a unique (and therefore, well-funded) institution.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

the true enduring majority

November 8, 2009 4:32 AM in reply to Chrsiti

Actually Christi, anyone with an IQ over Terri Shaivo knows that the Mayo Clinic is world renowned. It's common knowledge.

What you conveniently ignore however is the reason why Mayo Clinic hasn't endorsed any of the HCR bills as of yet. The Mayo Clinic doesn't simply offer exceptional quality but it does so at a fraction of the cost of the vast majority of other hospitals charge.

The reason for this is because the Mayo Clinic is a nonprofit, physician run clinic that pays it's doctors a salary as opposed to relying on insurance reimbursements for tests and procedures. By paying their doctors a salary, Mayo Clinic eliminates the perverse incentive's that result in the overuse of more expensive and in most cases unnecessary tests and treatments in order to make ends meet and hoping that the Insurance Co's will actually reimburse at a fair and reasonable rate.

The reason Mayo Clinic haven't endorsed any of he bills because in their opionon they bill doesn't go far enough in terms of encouraging doctors, hospitals and other health care providers to eliminate the grossly ineffcient fee based system and force a substantial move in the direction of paying doctors a salary, which would give them a guaranteed income plus benefits and allow doctors to be able to concentrate on their pateints .

So there you have it Christi,that is why Mayo Clinic is so successful and that is why they aren't thrilled with the draft legislation. So much for whatever half baked REpuke talking point you were going to trying

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

greg

November 8, 2009 1:51 AM

Chrsiti, because they can afford it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:55 AM

Stupak Amendment is shameful!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 2:00 AM in reply to Indie Pro

not to mention progressives agreeing to add no ammendments, yet this passes? The democratic party is not what it used to be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

greg

November 8, 2009 2:08 AM

Chrsiti, because they can afford it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 3:12 AM

I give Pelosi a ton of credit for this. She is incredibly tough. I'm overjoyed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:31 PM in reply to David

She allowed a very conservative amendment and no progressive amendments. Dunno...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to Tanjaoui

She had to get this done with the House she actually had. No, it's not perfect (and that's why our fight will continue for years to come to make it better, if/when this is finally signed into a law), but she did the best realistically possible with the votes she had.

Do you honestly believe she (or by a logical extension, Obama) can wave a magic wand and then everything instantly changes as you wish?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 2:17 PM in reply to geofu54

No, but something like the Kucinich Amendment is pretty modest. AHIP might object, but I don't see what any Conservadem would risk in voting for it. She could've allowed a floor vote on it. She did so for the Stupak Amendment. So...it would've been worth a try. That's poor leadership in my book.

The opportunity for 'sweeping' change had long since past. They couldn't have passed HR 676 at this late stage, and maybe not even Medicare rates +5%. But they could've put HR 676 on the table as a starting negotiating position and as a way to educate the public way back when (June). I don't believe in magic wands, but I know how to drive a good bargain. You don't start out low. You ask for the ideal solution first, then compromise. And you hope to educate your constituents along the way, to lay the ground for eventual debate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 6:18 PM in reply to geofu54

Thank you for the voice of reason. Bitch, bitch, whine whine whine from most folks - I want it all and I want it now.

Get back to reality - it's not how it works. Social Security and Medicare became improved over the years - it had to start somewhere - Health care and health insurance reform will get better and we should help the President in his efforts.

You see how difficult it is just to get a bill, let alone a "perfect" bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 12:23 AM in reply to lousgirl84

What can I say. Beg to differ. I am second guessing leadership on this. I think they could have done much better than they did under the circumstances. A new Administration. A 59 vote majority in the Senate. Leadership did not do the best they could with the Congress they had. They acted foolishly in not asking for everything the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for from the beginning. That's just horse sense. And such timid, small bore thinking, half measures, to gaping problems are giving the Republicans the window they'll need in the next election cycle. 16% of our GDP. And costs rising much faster than the rate of inflation. Economic populism within the Democratic party has been dead since RFK. And it's such a wasted opportunity. It is really our meal ticket, electorally.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 5:16 AM

Someone please explain why we don't execute Order 66* on at least 25 of the 39 "No" Dems...

*Order 66: The bloody execution of Jedi Knights of Star Wars legend by their own Clone soldier allies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 5:43 AM in reply to hoos30

Well, we live in a democratic state with civil rights. But I was glad to have caught the reference before you explained it. :)

Let's just try to make sure they don't get re-elected, yes?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 7:11 AM

How now brown Cao?

How about switching parties????

Things can't be very pleasant in the Chock Full O Nuts can these days

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to johnmccsf

This is stinking hilarious. LMAO.

He definitely took every Republican/Conservative argument for being against this bill, and took a big old healthy dump all over it.

Actually voting FOR the bill, because the people in your district NEED IT. Wow. What a concept.

Makes all the conserva-dems and Republicans that voted against it, look like garbage.

LOL!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:33 AM

Because they're rich as hell and, unlike about 99.9% of our citizens, can afford access to the country's best specialists and facilities.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:44 AM

As I stated in a reply above, I live in close proximatey to the Mayo clinic. I personally know many, many average and, yes, low income people who have been able to get into the Mayo at a moments notice the next day. The Mayo is exceptional when it comes to the care of it's patients no matter who they are. I pointed out the foreign royalty because they have enough money to go anywhere in the world to have care and know that the U.S. can give them the care they are looking for. The fact that you use such sarcasm in many of your comments tells me a lot. The word sarcasm is from a Greek word that means "to tear flesh". Is in possible to have a civilized conversation on here? I have always been open minded and am interested in hearing some constructive conversation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 8:49 AM in reply to Chrsiti

Who are you referring too - all of us posting here. We agree the Mayo Clinic is a great institution but what's your point?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:09 AM in reply to Chrsiti

I'm certain the Mayo Clinic provides terrific care for anybody who goes there. I also believe that the Mayo Clinic helps many "average" people. The point is, all people who end up at the Mayo Clinic are 1) either rich enough to pay for it or 2) recipients of capricious largess of that institution or 3) "interesting cases" whose study and treatment provides some benefit to the Mayo Clinic. Finally, I believe everybody ought to have the right to the kind of care the Mayo Clinic on an equal basis.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:12 AM in reply to Chrsiti

Constructive conversation would be easier if you would say something substantive instead of vague, largely irrelevant remarks about the Mayo clinic. Last I checked, there wasn't a "Mayo clinic" in every community in America, far from it, so your "point" is kind of irrelevant in terms of providing every American with access to health care. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Americans don't have the money to go anywhere in the world to receive affordable care.

With that said, the Mayo report from July refers to an earlier incarnation of the bill and does, in fact, say that it achieves a lot of good. Their beef concerns a lack of changes to Medicare reimbursement rates which is, frankly, a marginal issue in terms of delivering care to the vast majority of nonelderly Americans. The fact of the matter is that all of the newly insured under this bill won't be paying at Medicare rates, and this will be an enormous boon to the bottom line of health service providers. This is why the AMA, among others, has endorsed the bill.

Maybe you should actually inform yourself instead of coming to a conclusion about the bill and then desperately trying to find a basis to support your preferred conclusion?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:15 AM in reply to Chrsiti

There's also a major difference between having access to basic, preventative care and having access to life-saving treatments in the case of catastrophic injury or treatment. Royalty doesn't come here for the prior, they come here for the latter, and the latter is what a huge proportion of our population lacks access to (Mayo Clinic or no).

Again, you don't seem to really "get" this issue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to Chrsiti

Foreign royalty? Yeah, a bunch of middle eastern oil sheiks. What foreigners should you expect to be visiting Minnesota? Canadians, but Canadians do not top the list of foreign patients at Mayo. Gee, I wonder why?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to bluebell

Good point!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:08 AM

I am referring to any comments that include,"wingnut, nutcase, lunatic fringe, racist, stupid, inadiquately educated, crazies, fanatics, uninformed, bigoted, christionist". Throughout this and several other blogs these are words people are using to describe others who don't agree with them. I am not painting everyone with the same brush. I just would like to hear what and why people think the way they do on this site without feeling like it's an attack of insults. I have two sisters who are on the other side of the scale than me and I can not have a rational conversation with them about polotics because it always comes to waves of insulting names, blame, blame, blame and them shouting out the opponant. I am looking for anyone here who can give me some answers to questions I have without feeling attacked.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:20 AM in reply to Chrsiti

You introduced yourself by implying anyone who disagrees with you is not "enlightened." Now, in classic troll fashion, you complain about how mean people are to you. Oh, you poor thing. Maybe you can get the Mayo Clinic to have a look at that boo boo free of charge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:42 AM in reply to Stroszek

When I said "enlighten" I was only saying, you may get some information that you do not already have that may add to your perspective on the situation, Stroszek. Yes, both sides call eachother names. I am not, so I thought I might find someone who would be willing to converse. We all see things at a different perspective. I am only wanting to understand why my sisters feel the way they do so that I might have a decent time with them when they visit.

Why do you assume I am worried about the welfare of insurance companies? I haven't even said anything about them? I also don't believe in denying anyone health care. Anyone can walk into any emergancy room in the U.S. right now and receive healthcare without insurance. Who is being denied there?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

moat

November 8, 2009 10:17 AM in reply to Chrsiti

You can walk into any emergency room and get a bed. Receiving treatments that require a lot of money need to be covered by Medicare or Medicaid. Not everybody is given that coverage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:12 PM in reply to Chrsiti

Emergency room treatment is no substitute for regular medical attention. People who are forced to use emergency care services as a last resort are typically in terrible shape because they get no preventive health care. Their quality of life is awful. Often, by the time a patient needs to visit the emergency room, they have multiple, complicating conditions which have gone unchecked for years. When they finally resort to the emergency care, if the condition for which they are being treated is disabling, they may lose their job. Often they are patched up and sent home, with little or no follow-up. Their baseline health continues to deteriorate, and, if they are a wage-earner in a household, their illness imperils a source of income upon which others depend. Emergency room care is also very expensive, and, in the case of the uninsured, costs are passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher provider fees. Not creating a huge national pool of insured patients is (1) inhumane, and (2) very expensive for society. A large single payer plan (like HR 676, a 30 page document available at OpenCongress.org) would address both issues. Our leadership has rejected that solution as a possible infringement of personal freedom, and while Obama has said he considers it the most logical solution to the problem (unemployment at over 10%, closer to 17%, health care consuming 16% of our GDP and rising much faster than the rate of inflation), feels it is 'un-American' or not American enough...something along those lines.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:32 PM in reply to Chrsiti

You can't get chemotherapy in an emergency room. You can't get maternity care in an emergency room.

And you can't get basic care from an emergency room without being saddled by tens of thousands of dollars of debt.

That's health care, and it's being denied.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:21 AM

Both sides call each other names - this is nothing compared to what you guys call us. I have been to some right wing sites and they are vicious so please - stop acting like you are being attacked. Most of us here disagree with you and don't understand how anyone could be against health care and health insurance reform. It is beyond my comprehension to be honest. How can anyone want to deny someone a right to get care if they get sick and not lose everything while they are sick and can't pay for health care. That is inhumane and most of the world agrees.

The insurance companies are sucking our blood with premiums then when we need to use our insurance, they raise your rates or drop you. How can you think that is okay? Why are you so worried about their welfare?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Pre-existing Condition

November 8, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to lousgirl84

I agree with you lousgirl84. Insurance companies hold coverage over your head. They have boards who decide who gets coverage and who doesn't. I know from personal experience.

The House Members who voted against this bill have never walked in a poor man's shoes. They say they are representing the ones who voted them into office but I honestly believe they are voting for themselves. They have health insurance so they don't worry about pre-existing conditions, high insurance rates and losing coverage at the drop of a hat. They should be ashamed of themselves and I hope they are voted out of office at the next election. This bill has been a long time coming and I praying it passes the Senate and signed into law.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 11:41 PM in reply to lousgirl84

The insurance companies are sucking our blood with premiums then when we need to use our insurance, they raise your rates or drop you. How can you think that is okay

now they can't drop you, but now the govt says you must allow them to suck your blood. Big win! woowooo!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 7:27 AM in reply to Indie Pro

lol - i know right... Affordable - not so much. Higher taxes - yeppers - bring HC costs down - not so much - medicare - frozen for 10 years... end use consumer gets f'd again.

the big winner is US GOVT! Woo hooo

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 1:01 PM in reply to Odel Roo

Gov't? No way. They're subsidizing private insurers. I'd say private industry is the big winner here. The gov't has handed them 28 million people who are now legally obliged to buy insurance from them at rates the insurers decide. They can charge whatever they want. And if what they and providers charge exceeds a certain percentage of your income, the government steps in with subsidies. Where do those subsidies come from? Taxes. Where do they end up? In the hands of the insurers, drug companies (big time), bureaucrats (billing, accounts is a huge % of cost here), advertising (all those nice ads on TV), executive pay packages (not a big %, but even most non-profits provide them) medical equipment suppliers...and, eventually, providers: doctors (who have huge debts when they get out of school - so banks profit from all this)and hospitals etc. Yes, it's an industry. Legislators have really tied themselves into knots trying to keep everyone happy. Everyone but the 'end user' - you and I. And all for something that isn't a commodity: your health. We could save a hell of a lot of money if we cut out the middle man - insurers, and did this the sensible way, with HR 676. But the Administration deemed that 'un-American', right? Said it would upset too many people. We'll see how many people are upset next year, around election time, when unemployment (which is tied to employment) is still at over 10% and people are going into medical bankruptcy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to Tanjaoui

sorry...meant 'when unemployment (which is tied to insurance) is still at over 10%'

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 7:13 AM in reply to lousgirl84

"how anyone could be against health care and health insurance reform. It is beyond my comprehension to be honest. How can anyone want to deny someone a right to get care if they get sick and not lose everything while they are sick and can't pay for health care."

I believe you mistakenly confuse how you create the reform as not wanting reform. Generally speaking, No one is denying or wants to deny HC or HCR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mikedrevguy

November 8, 2009 9:34 AM

Remember, remember- the 7th of November -
On to the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 9:53 AM

I haven't gotten into any detail about my views because, as I have stated, it is difficult to have a conversation without being judged instantly. You have proven to me that even when I make an effot to understand with an open mind it is difficult to get any answers without being accused of "acting like I'm being attacked" and told that I'm "inhumane".

My time will be better spent finding another way to enlighten myself. Thank you for the bits and pieces I did get though. I admire your passion and wish you well in you efforts to live and let live.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Moremony services

November 8, 2009 12:08 PM

hello ,I can't imagine that there won't be a lawsuit against the Stupak amendment if it makes it into the compromise bill. Makes me wonder how many pieces of silver Rahm Emanuel had to pay to get Cao's vote. Also makes me wonder about the possible pitfalls for reproductive health rights if such a lawsuit occurred. I can see the smile on Antonin Scalia's face now just anticipating the fun.

attorney
Moremony

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:39 PM in reply to Moremony services

Stupak wasn't about Cao. Stupak was about Stupak and the 10-30 additional Democratic "nays" lined up if it wasn't allowed to the floor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 12:41 PM

As I've pointed out here before, after discrimination against African Americans (really, all blacks), woman hating is the centerpiece of American politics. And so passage of the House's "health" bill turned on it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 2:12 PM

I'm being told that this bill allows private insurers to charge up to 30% of your income in premiums before giving you access to the public option, which is still run and administered by private insurance companies, and it pays for this by levying new taxes on the poor and making large cuts to Medicare, enforces jail sentences on people who don't get health insurance, and also forces people to pay for abortions out of pocket because insurers who cover them will no longer get federal subsidies.

It feels like we're all happy we finally got a car but it turns out it's a lemon. What the fuck?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to putnamp

On the other hand I may've been misled about the 30% part sooo

(still the other parts are concerning)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 3:08 PM in reply to putnamp

Nope, apparently this bill is horrible and people cheering for it either don't yet know what it contains or are more interested in feeling like their 'team' won (I suspect it's more the former, unless Rahm Emanuel's reading this).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluestatedon

November 8, 2009 2:37 PM

I know this pales in significance to the actual issue at hand, but jeez, TPM, you couldn't have selected a more awful photo of Pelosi for the home page if you tried. It really approaches photo editing malpractice. Or is it TPM's secret editorial comment on Pelosi?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 8, 2009 3:14 PM

All progressives should cease contributing to any Democratic cause except Kucinich in 2010, make him our kingmaker, send a message: he is our gold standard for progressive change. Want our bucks? Vote like him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mistersnrub

November 8, 2009 4:39 PM

Owens provided a key vote in favor of the bill. Last week's election was clearly a sign of GOP resurgence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

drwu

November 8, 2009 6:01 PM

Mush is what house passed.

“House Passes Sweeping Health Care Reform Legislation,” scream the headlines.
Sadly, mush is what the House passed.
Obama says House plan is “courageous.” Pul-eese. this is not courageous. All countries in Europe cover abortions in their health care plans, not us, though. With the House plan more people are somewhat covered--not Cadillac insurance, mind you, more like roller skater insurance--if you fall and bruise your knees, the first knee is a $25 co-pay, the second in $1000. No single payer and therefore no cost cutting. And Medicare (seniors) gets cut to the tune of 500 billion! The insurance companies (AARP included!) are ecstatic --millions more customers at government expense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

the true enduring majority

November 9, 2009 1:51 AM in reply to drwu

Either you are a really clever troll or a true retard. The federal government has been banned from paying for abortions for roughly 30 years if not more, so frankly the Stupak Amendment is political theater. It won't survive conference. The above is known as political posturing, and if that is news to you than you need to start living in reality. You'll get much more accomplished and hopefully look less foolish. (IndiePro, I'm looking at you...)

Also, while countries in Europe cover abortions in their health care plans, many of them have extremely onerous restrictions on when, how and who abortions can be performed (ie. very catholic countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland etc.). To compare abortion policy in the US to that of Europe is like comparing apples to oranges in some, and apples to helicopters in others due to the degree of difference in social values on per-country basis in Europe but also in comparison to the United States. To attempt to paint this situation with such a broad stroke is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

I would refute the rest of what you shat out in your turd of a post, but based on the fact that it either has no basis in reality (no single payer= no cost control?) or is downright contradictory (bitching about lack of cost control and then complaining about cutting $500 billion of private insurance giveaways and lax oversight out of Medicare) I can conclude you're either a troll or riding the short bus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 10:02 AM in reply to the true enduring majority

yawn.

I think you are a perfect example of the current democratic party. The new conservative party, full of derision for liberal and progressive ideas.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 9, 2009 10:02 AM in reply to the true enduring majority

and if you want to address me, have the courage to actually do it, you knob.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

USgreentech

November 8, 2009 11:26 PM

They did pass it and so will the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Follow us!

PollTracker

AZ-GOV

Goddard (D) 44%, Brewer (R) 35%
Nov 23 Rasmussen
AZ-GOV

Arpaio (R) 51%, Goddard (D) 39%
Nov 23 Rasmussen
AZ-GOV

Goddard (D) 40%, Martin (R) 38%
Nov 23 Rasmussen
Obama

Approve 49%, Disapprove 44%
Nov 23 Gallup
Obama

Approve 46%, Disapprove 53%
Nov 23 Rasmussen

Most Popular

Viewed
Rec'd
Commented
On Digg

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

TPM Top News

Ex-Wash Times Ed: Moon's Church Provides Bulk Of Paper's Revenue

Fox News Threatens Pink Slips For On-Screen Errors

What's Next For Health Care Reform After Saturday's Vote?

Hundreds Line Up For Palin's Fort Bragg Book Signing