TPMDC
Pelosi Unveils 'Manager's Amendment' Finalizing House Health Care Bill
Share
Send to a friend!
After hearing from all sides of her caucus, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced some minor changes to the health care bill she unveiled last week, enshrined in a so called "Manager's Amendment" to the greater bill she plans to bring to the floor.
You can read the Manager's Amendment here (PDF). By agreement, it will have to be online for at least 72 hours before the bill can come to the floor, meaning we could see action by the end of the week. At a glance I see some tweaks firming up the provisions ending the anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies, and creating some real consequences for violators.
Again, at a glance, I see no changes to the public option, particularly one, requested by House progressives, to create a ceiling on the rates negotiated between the government and health care providers. I also see not a single word about abortion--Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) wants to ban any and all federal money--including money spent on subsidies for private insurance plans--from paying for abortions, and he's been raising quite a fuss about it.
But it's legislative text, so we're still going through it, and will certainly have more for you in the morning.
Late update: Pelosi has issued a statement on the amendment, which I've pasted below the fold.
"Tonight, we have filed a manager's amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, which is the next critical step toward comprehensive health insurance reform that ensures affordability for the middle class, provides security for our seniors, and protects our children's future by not adding to our deficit. Our bill covers 96 percent of Americans, makes coverage more affordable for all, and creates new consumer protections that will end discrimination by insurance companies against the sick and cap what Americans pay out-of-pocket."Building on the legislation House Democrats introduced last week, this manager's amendment includes these key improvements to the bill:
· providing $1 billion in new resources to states to rein in price gouging by insurance companies,
· excluding insurers who put profits over patients from an affordable marketplace that will serve tens of millions of Americans,
· expanding on the provision that removed insurance companies' anti-trust exemption and strengthening it to further promote competition and bring down costs for Americans; and
· expanding oversight to further prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.
"Americans are ready for comprehensive health insurance reform, and the House will soon act."
Comments (4) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Indie Pro
November 3, 2009 11:16 PM
these are good changes, but there were quite a few other things I hoped to see in here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
November 4, 2009 12:26 AM
Will Grijalva get the vote on his amendment he requested?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 4, 2009 12:27 PM in reply to mcc
I doubt it. His amendment isn't scored by CBO and on my reading can't be scored because its revenue provisions are not actually specific. Assuming it is identical to HR676, the bill co-sponsored by Gijalva, it is financed by a tax on the top 5% at some unspecified level, a similarly unspecified tax on Cadillac plans, and an equally non-specific tax on stock and bond sales.
The single-payer legislation out there is not in my view a serious policy proposal, it is more an aspirational piece of advocacy for a European style Social Democratic vision. Which is not a bad thing in itself, if I could wave a magic wand and make out public and social infrastructure look like Sweden I would. But since I live in the reality-based continuum I see a bill that delivers comprehensive and totally free health care to illegal immigrants and abolishes the VA hospital system as maybe, just a tiny bit, kinda, sorta like political suicide. Not to mention that the bill as written makes your neighborhood or grocery store pharmacy an illegal operation.
I got a fair amount of flack for pointing some of these inconvenient truths out in diaries at MyDD and Open Left yesterday but anyone who actually showed any signs that they had actually read the bill text admitted that the language was incredibly sloppy and filled with unintended consequences.
This proposal is entirely symbolic and if put forward will go down to crushing defeat. Because the talking points and ads write themselves.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.676:
Should Microsoft software engineers get better medical coverage than the undocumented landscape worker working on the Redmond corporate campus? Should doctors get higher pay than kindergarten teachers? Should Walgreen's be able to make even a small profit selling prescription drugs? Should disabled war veterans have access to a dedicated medical system and specialists that are not available to migrant farm workers? Well if we were idealistic Young Socialists debating social and economic justice in the dorm common room until 3AM we might stumble to some sort of consensus around "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". But I don't think you want to go to the 2010 mid-terms making anyone of those four arguments.
Read the bill while imagining that you were a Congressman explaining it to his constituents and then get back to me. This is a feel-good proposal for starry-eyed progressives and not a serious attempt to get legislation passed, it is probably best for all concerned if it doesn't get a vote. Because the achievable parts of it will be doomed for a generation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 4, 2009 12:35 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/grijalva-continues-push-for-robust-public-option.php
http://www.openleft.com/diary/15801/house-rules-committee-still-hasnt-scheduled-health-care-markup
Well it looks like it is Weiner who is pushing for a HR676 substitute and Grijalva who is pushing for a Medicare plus Five amendment so it would depend what else was in Grijalva's amendment but the basic argument remains, the approach taken by Grijalva and Weiner is taken as a whole not politically viable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?