About | RSS

TPMDC

Obama: Senate Bill Has 'Compromises' But Changes Made It Stronger

Christina Bellantoni | December 19, 2009, 2:07PM

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

President Barack Obama

Read More

Share

Fark

Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

President Obama said compromise is necessary on every piece of legislation, and outlined bits of the new Senate health care deal he said makes it much stronger.

In a brief statement to reporters a few hours as Senate Republicans forced the reading of the 383-page amendment containing the final deal, Obama said the nation stands "on the cusp" of big change.

"There's still much work left to be done with not a lot of time left to do it," Obama said, adding: "Today is a major step forward for the American people."

The president detailed changes to the Senate legislation that he said "made this landmark bill even stronger."

Among them:

Imposing penalties for insurance companies that "arbitrarily jack up prices for consumers."

Prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to children immediately.

"Protect patient's choice of doctor."

"No longer will insruance companies be able to drop your coverage if you become sick," Obama said.

He also lauded the deficit reduction projected in the latest CBO score as the largest reduction in any legislation in history, with $132 billion projected to be saved in the first decade and $1 trillion in the next.

Here are his full remarks.

Comments (63) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

December 19, 2009 2:11 PM

And we even had the opportunity to include a special provision for the weaker sex enabling them to self-identify with an extra special premium payment just for them if they consider it likely they might want to exercise their reproductive rights. It's called the unequal rights amendment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to bluebell

So right you are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:28 PM

But it does allow women to buy abortion coverage with their own money, unlike the Stupak amendment did, which seems like the most essential point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to IndyLinda

But it concedes a much larger philosophical point treating women differently while making their reproductive health optional.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to bluebell

You are right again. But they are all pro-life so that makes everything okay.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to bluebell

So what's new about that. That has been going on forever.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:46 PM in reply to lousgirl84

Bluebell wants to talk philosophy while people are dying.

She'll walk away from this bill because it concedes a "larger philosophical point."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:59 PM in reply to Tintin

Frankly, I'm not sure why she is still hanging around here long after she declared she would vote for a third party from now on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:59 PM in reply to geofu54

Silly girl! She probably didn't read the fine print stating that this was a Democrat-only site.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 7:50 PM in reply to Tintin

So you're rationale is 'since there are people dying it is just fine to relegate women to being second class citizens again'? In order to right a wrong we need some people to give up their rights? This is progress? WTF!!?? Bluebell is absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. Your logic is the same logic that Bush used to justify the war in Iraq and torture...

I'm starting to think this country really is f&$ked...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 7:22 PM in reply to bluebell

But can't that part be challenged as a violation of the 14th amendment after the bill is passed? It would appear that would be the clearest path to proper legislation in the future rather than no bill at all.

Compromise is essential in congress, despite sometimes being a bitter pill to swallow. If you know of a better way to get around the demands of Nelson, please share them. He will be an important vote in future legislation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to IndyLinda

but will there be limp dick coverage? Because it looks like a lot of "legislators" are going to need that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:29 PM in reply to LindaR

LOL!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to IndyLinda

The Stupak amendment left exceptions for rape, incest and the "life" of the woman, what about the health of the woman? Must she carry to term even if she becomes gravel ill, but not dead? What about future reproductive ability?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 9:52 AM in reply to IndyLinda

"But it does allow women to buy abortion coverage with their own money..."

But I've been able to do that since 1973. It's called paying out of pocket. This does me no favors. What this does is put restrictions on what is ostensibly a legal medical procedure. But as we know, the fine points of legality have been lost on this Congress for many decades.

And BTW, is there a restriction on paying for fertility treatments that deliberately create numerous excess embryos, many of whom are then deliberately terminated in the womb? I really want to know, why is it we don't see big trucks with bloody blown-up photos and weeping children with protest signs outside fertility clinics? Why isn't there a move in the Senate to restrict them, to throw up ridiculous regulations and laws to make it impossible to find a clinic or a doctor to perform fertility procedures? Why don't we get long-winded sermons in Congress about the "holocaust" of wasted life? Oh, wait. Fertility treatments are legal, aren't they?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

midnight rambler

December 19, 2009 2:34 PM

Note that the Senate bill, at least, blocks pre-existing condition disqualification for children immediately, but for adults it doesn't kick in until 2014! That seems nuts to me. It's one of the most important things in the bill, one of the ones that gets talked about the most, yet it's put off for four years. WTF?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 3:05 PM in reply to midnight rambler

2014???????? Double WTF. By then I will be in medicare anyway, if I live that long.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to Michael A

Could not agree more. TARP was outlined last year in ONE WEEKEND, passed a short time later and immediately initiated. WTF with getting health care reform going ASAP?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to midnight rambler

Seriously? Oi...I'm looking at another 4 years without insurance then...Wonder if I'll be able to get around the mandate punishment by pointing this out?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 1:31 AM in reply to Kuyleh

Mandate doesn't kick in until 2014 either. I think that's by design -- the rationale for the mandate is that without it, everyone's premiums will skyrocket once insurance companies can't exclude for preexisting conditions (and to be fair, that's not completely illegitimate). It does suck, however -- and I'm in your position...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to rj

It's an accounting fiddle. Obama laid down an arbitrary 900b limit. So they had to put the bill off for a few years to come in under that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:39 PM

I love how it's always compromising other people's needs that is so sadly necessary.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:40 PM

Is the bill that comes out of the house-senate conference subject to debate - and thus another filibuster - in the senate? Or does it go right to a vote?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

December 19, 2009 4:52 PM in reply to kqrbob

It can be filibustered, but no further amendments can be offered.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:42 PM

what a sham...We have been thrown under the bus over and over, and he is pleased...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:46 PM in reply to psmdsfc

I wish someone would throw the phrase, "thrown under the bus", under the bus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to Dorn76

Me too. Talk about wearing out a phrase to the point of ad nauseum

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:31 PM in reply to psmdsfc

So die already.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 2:57 PM

He may be smiling today, but I doubt he will be smiling after the mid-terms.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to xargaw

We will be fine in the mid-terms. More bullshit talk.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 6:27 PM in reply to lousgirl84

Agreed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

LarsThorwald

December 19, 2009 3:11 PM

I wish this bill were as good as Social Security and Medicare were when they both passed. Oh, wait.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 11:39 PM in reply to LarsThorwald

OK, now you are supposed to tell us this bill can be improved like Medicare. Then tell me why the hell they just didn't improve Medicare in the first place instead of sticking us with this bill instead!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 3:27 PM

If you start with crap, you can finesse it, tweak it, polish it bright. In the end all you have is shiny shit. What a disappointment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

twirling fartknocker

December 19, 2009 3:42 PM

yeah, they won't be able to drop you, but they sure as hell will keep jacking up rates as they continue to hold a monopoly on health care in this country

other creepy things in the bill: allows states to ban any abortion insurance coverage whatsoever AND abstinence-only sex ed ended up in there

this bill is shit, and I have no patience for any milquetoast, pusillanimous, pretend-friend-to-humanity "liberals" who get behind it. this bill is 5 steps backwards in too many areas to support, and it will be the end of Democratic majorities for a generation once people start paying fines for the mandates

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:38 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker

Don't you occasionally wish you knew what you were talking about?

Five states (ID, KY, MO, ND, OK) already restrict insurance coverage of abortion services in private plans: OK limits coverage to life endangerment, rape or incest circumstances; and the other four states limit coverage to cases of life endangerment.

The only people who will "pay fines for the mandates" are those who are not willing to pay a maximum of 8% of their income for insurance so that overall health costs are lowered. Poor and working poor will be subsidized. If they can afford insurance (again 8%) and are selfish enough not to buy it, then they should pay a fine.

Pay attention and find out what's in the bill before you start with your insults and accusations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

twirling fartknocker

December 19, 2009 4:56 PM in reply to converse

hey, I read a very thorough piece in the NY Times on it. thank you very much.

now, go back and cover your eyes and cheer for whatever crap they throw your way

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 7:29 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker

Prove it. Oh wait, you already have.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

i said GOOD DAY sir

December 19, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker

To be honest with you, I don't really see how the abortion language really matters in the context of the bill. Doesn't the Hyde Amendment already cover the subsidies?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Pete Sikora

December 19, 2009 3:55 PM

We need health care reform, but not on the backs of middle class workers. Taxing health care benefits is bad policy and really bad politics. It could walk the dem majority off a cliff. See the CWA report for on the tax at www.healthcarevoices.org for real-world numbers, not baloney.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 3:57 PM

and what exactly was the compromise the republicans made?

and why exactly do the democrats with 60 seats need to compromise?

and where were you obama leadind the charge for a PO?

and why do you attack only progressives?

whats the point.............................................................................

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to JadeZ

Learn to count. The Democrats don't have sixty seats. Your last line what exactly what I asked myself when I read your post.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 12:23 PM in reply to converse

try reading the bill instead of lying about it and pretending you have a clue about what it actually says.

maybe then you will understand the point.

becasue you dont have a clue about the impact of the mandates.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:41 PM in reply to JadeZ

Exactly right. It's not as much bowing to conservadems as much as trying to appear, bi-partisan by kissing Oly Snowe's ass. So much destruction without a single voice in support. BLAME REPUBLICANS!
They repeat the "behind closed doors" phrase adnauseum, but when have they let CNN into they're little "Kill the Bill", obstruct at any cost, private arm twisters?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 4:36 PM

Where will they hang the "Mission Accomplished" banner?

It will be just as meaningful. Obama the Mandater.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rachelrebecca

December 19, 2009 4:40 PM

JadeZ. What exactly could Reid or Obama have done to Ben Nelson to get him to vote for the bill or to Lieberman? Stripped their chairmanships and seniority? Ok, let's go down that road. Lieberman is probably in his last term. His chances of re-election are almost nothing. He'd just go over to the GOP and then we'd still not have 60 votes only this time we'd not have it for any health care bill. No reform. The current reform while far from perfect will by 2014 (which is needed as you have to let the system transition over; do it all at once and you'll cause serous financial havoc) provide coverage for 30 million currently uninsured Americans, reduce the growth in health insurance premiums for most Americans, subsidize health insurance for many who cannot now afford it, reduce health insurance costs, will reduce the federal deficit, and will stop people from losing coverage or being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition. It's a lot better than the status quo. Your realistic options were a compromise like this or the status quo. Anything else would have been a repeat of 1993. I'll take improved, but imperfect, healthcare over ideological purity any day of the week.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to rachelrebecca

Of course, and Jade Z will be sitting out the next election out of pique...helping the Republicans take back Congress or even the WH...because, well, there's hardly any difference between Obama and Palin or Pawlenty...is there?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 12:03 PM in reply to rachelrebecca

the flaw is accepting the argument as made then either agreeing or not.
the point is there were other ways of getting real reform and obama didnt try.
no one makes the argumnet and stands up for real reform.
they say they cant get it done and thats the end to it...
tell us why!!
the people wanted a PO and the people wanted medicare yet we dont see it......

wheres the integrity and why would Obama even take this fight on unless he had known this would be the result?

you see the game was rigged from the start and everyone is only allowed to argue one set of rules

....................

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:03 PM

"...whatever crap they throw your way"

I thought you were the one reading the NYT.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcdonald928

December 19, 2009 5:07 PM

When the far left ("it's a gift to corporations!") and far right ("it's a step toward socialism!") are expressing each a similar level of outrage at something that is about to pass, all of us progressive realists can take satisfaction that some evolutionary change, even if small, is actually occurring somehow out of our ridiculously gridlocked politics.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:10 PM in reply to mcdonald928

Anyone who actually reads criticism of the bill on sites like Firedoglake and DailyKos can immediately see that much of it is substantive and detailed. Agree or not, most critics are making a case against the bill as flawed policy that will have adverse real-world consequences. Why is it “ideological” to claim a mandate with inadequate subsidies risks forcing people to buy insurance they can’t afford?

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/journalists-cheerfully-urinating-on-senate-bills-ideological-critics/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:29 PM in reply to Indie Pro

I wouldn't call it "ideological"; I'd call it ignorant.

Nobody will be mandated to pay more than 8% of their income. If you're 150% or less of poverty level, you get subsidized from a pot of about 900 billion.

I'm sorry, couldn't quite hear. What "substantive criticism" were you talking about?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:36 PM in reply to converse

Nobody will be mandated to pay more than 8% of their income.

what are you basing that on?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:40 PM

Uh, the bill. Read it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:43 PM in reply to converse

what part of the bill? Come on, smart guy. Does it say anything about 400%. Come on. Look it up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:52 PM in reply to Indie Pro

You had the question. You look it up. It's in the Schumer amendment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

twirling fartknocker

December 19, 2009 5:45 PM in reply to converse

wow, you read the whole bill? that's impressive. either that or you're lying

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 5:53 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker

Seriously? Lying? What part? You're the only one who said I read the whole bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

twirling fartknocker

December 19, 2009 6:38 PM in reply to converse

you keep saying "read the bill" without actually referencing a source other than the bill itself, inferring that you have read the entire bill

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 7:39 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker

Can someone explain whether twirling fartknocker is for real or is he the most idiotic troll to have ever crossed this site? I know that's a pretty low bar, but seriously. Responses like this make you wonder.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 19, 2009 10:03 PM

There's compromise, and then there's capitulation. I'll leave it to others to decide which one this bill is. I know what I think.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 12:20 PM

Capitulation is just the right word for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 20, 2009 7:26 PM

The insurance industry adds nothing of value to health care. So they're coyly allowing themselves to be "captured" by the government, in the form of regulations, in exchange for (1) continued existence (taking single payer off the table and exemption from anti-trust regulation under McCarran-Ferguson)and,(2) political donations. The Democrats are now the biggest beneficiaries of health care industry donations (from insurers, pharma, doctors and hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, etc.). The industry will later threaten to switch to the Republicans in an effort to play one party off against the other. It's a symbiotic relationship in which 'moderation' is a key enabling meme, and where the general public benefits only incidentally.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Follow us!

Most Popular

Viewed
Rec'd
Commented
On Digg

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

TPM Top News