World

Partly Sunny with Showers 7° London Hi 11°C / Lo 7°C

Obama hails a 'historic' US victory on healthcare reform

Speaker Pelosi praised for her work to secure passage of the President's keynote legislation

By Guy Adams in Los Angeles

Nancy Pelosi

REUTERS

The Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, celebrates the Democratic victory during a news conference following the House vote on healthcare reform in Washington. President Obama's last-minute push proved decisive

Pushed over the finish line by President Barack Obama, and marked by ferocious politicking that lasted late into the night, a bill to reform America's healthcare system is a step closer to reality after being narrowly endorsed in the House of Representatives.

The package, designed to extend medical coverage to 96 per cent of the country, squeaked through by a majority of 220 to 215, shortly after the President publicly implored supporters to "answer the call of history" and implement what has become his top domestic priority.

Noisy cheers and high-fives were exchanged on the floor of the chamber at about 11.15pm on Saturday, when hours of fractious debate ended with news that the 2,000-page bill had been passed. Democratic speaker Nancy Pelosi won praise from the bill's supporters for her relentless work in chivvying recalcitrant members into voting "Yes". As their victory became clear, some Democrats asked her to sign their copies of the bill.

"This is an historic moment for our nation and for American families," Ms Pelosi said, comparing the legislation to the passage of social security in 1935. Democratic whips had spent days securing commitments of support from party members and eventually gained the votes of 219 Democrats, together with a lone Republican, Joseph Cao.

The remaining 176 Republicans, with 39 Democrats from the party's conservative wing, opposed the legislation. Mr Cao, who represents a left-leaning district of New Orleans, said he cast his vote after an amendment was passed limiting government funding of abortions.

President Obama hailed the move as "historic", saying "opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation". He said he was "absolutely confident" that the US Senate would now pass its own healthcare bill, allowing him to sign reforms into law in the new year. But Mr Obama's healthcare proposals face a rougher ride in the upper house of Congress, where some conservative Democrats retain reservations that could stymie the bill's passage.

Under the reform, every American citizen will be required to obtain health coverage, or face penalties. All but the smallest employers must cover their workers. A national marketplace will be created, giving people the chance to buy into a government-run "public option" insurance plan if they prefer.

It will become illegal for insurance firms to deny someone health insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions, or to drop coverage when a customer falls ill. They will no longer be exempt from "anti-trust" laws that are designed to stop cartels of companies colluding to fix prices at inflated rates.

Video: US House backs healthcare reforms

The impact of the bill has been fiercely disputed. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that over the reform's 10-year lifespan, it would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 36 million, from 17 per cent of the population to roughly 4 per cent.

Democrats have been trying to rebuild healthcare for almost 40 years, and regard Saturday's vote as a signal victory. "[The bill] offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable healthcare when they need it," said their representative, John Dingell.

Republicans have been fiercely opposed to President Obama's mooted changes, regarding them as a government takeover of a vast sector of the economy. "We are going to have a complete government takeover of our healthcare system faster than you can say, 'This is making me sick'," said the party's representative, Candice Miller. The plan will cost $1.1trn over 10 years.

Since the Democrats hold a strong majority in the House of Representatives, the key to passing the bill lay with securing the support of so called "blue dog" members of the party, who represent traditionally Republican districts and now face mid-term elections in 2010 at which healthcare will be a key issue.

As part of the horse-trading to secure majority support, the House voted by 240-194 to support a Republican amendment that tightened restrictions on abortion. Publicly funded insurance policies will now cover the procedure only in highly limited circumstances, such as rape.

Despite that setback, the vote represents a key victory for Mr Obama, whose party's poor showing in last week's elections was partly due to growing public scepticism about his ability to deliver on the promise of "change".

What happens now? The route to reform

By Miranda Bryant

What's the next step?

Now that the House of Representatives has approved the Healthcare Reform Bill, the battle will move to the upper house, the Senate, which has to pass its own version of the bill. If a bill is passed, then the two versions will be merged by a team of senior Democrats before it finally goes for a vote by both chambers that could finally bring the bill to the President for his approval.

Is there anything that could hold up the bill's progress?

Yes. If the House and Senate bills are at odds with one another, the process could take a lot longer, and key senators have already expressed their opposition to the so-called "public option", a government-run scheme that would be offered as an alternative to private insurance. Senator Joseph Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, yesterday warned that he opposes the idea of the government getting involved in insurance provision, and would reject any bill containing a public option. Opposition from centrists such as Mr Lieberman could have a critical effect on the chances of such a bill succeeding. If the Senate passes a bill rejecting a key element such as the public option, a conference committee, comprised of members from both chambers, would be established to reconcile the two options and present a fresh version for a vote.

When is it likely to become law?

Having made the reform of the healthcare system one of his top campaign promises, it is crucial for Mr Obama's political gravitas to get the bill passed by the end of the year and he may be willing to make compromises to ensure that it does. But disagreements within Congress could yet push final agreement on a bill back until 2010.

What happens if the bill fails?

So much of Mr Obama's political capital is riding on the bill now that some version of healthcare reform is almost certain to eventually pass, if only to save face: the danger for the President is that he could still be forced to dilute his plan to gain the support of the Senate. That could weaken his authority and make his wider agenda significantly harder to push through, besides, of course, re-energising Republicans and pushing back Democratic hopes of reforming healthcare for another generation.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[info]shanndez wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 01:36 am (UTC)
Forcing Americans to get health insurance or fining them is SOOOOO unconstitutional, it's not even funny.
Where is the freedom to choose? What happens if I want to go to a Naturopath? Will health insurance cover it?
If I'm force to have health insurance, it better cover any choice I make in health issues for myself and for my family.
I'm not happy with this what-so-ever. In other words, it's complete bullshit.
Re: Completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[info]tonygfd wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 02:19 am (UTC)
you talk about freedom to choose. well a lot of americans would liuke to choose to have health insurance but cant afford it. This bill in its present state will make insurance affordable for them. Now thats what i call freedom to choose.
Re: Completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[info]another_g_o_m wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 02:22 am (UTC)
Are you also happy that your attitude condemns your fellow countrymen to spending around 30% more for medical care than the equivalent level of service in any other nation with advanced medical care facilities?

That's the bottom line.
Re: Completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[info]drmagyar wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 05:38 am (UTC)
If it is unconstitutional then I am sure someone will challenge it; otherwise it isn't.

Sometime you have to choose whether you want to live in a country where you have such high inequalities between rich and poor, healthy and unhealthy. I really don't see what the problem is. Most other countries in the world have worked out that it is better to have a healthcare system that cares for everyone rather than one that caters for the rich and especially for health insurance companies. Why does the US have problems with this?

The only arguments I hear are about efficiency and how the government should not be providing healthcare. I don't see that the current system of insurance companies that like to deny sick users and not pay out on claims is efficient. And I don't see why the govenment shouldn't be in healthcare. Seems to work elsewhere.
Re: Completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[info]drewridama wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC)
er.. Americans already do have to pay for a naturopath [sic]... along with every other medical 'privilege'.
If you're going to get your information from the likes of Murdock, then know that you have been turned into a mouth-piece for the medical industry- which is spending millions a day to misinform. Why? Because they are making billions from ripping off people like you.
Re: Completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL
[info]nycartist wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:51 pm (UTC)
It's certainly not Medicare for All.
First Step
[info]stephhunter wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 02:16 am (UTC)
This is the first step on the road to victory. True victory will incorporate what's already been working in healthcare. http://cli.gs/23yYaM/
Re: First Step
[info]unitevshate wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 02:35 am (UTC)
This is great news. For a supposedly developed country with one of the biggest economy in the world, its healthcare was completely backwards. A lot of us in UK were somewhat dumbfounded by the protesters who would protest against people getting basic medical needs without having to worry about financial costs. And what, some near 40% of USA don't have basic medical insurance and a lot of them are reluctant to go even for a check up cause how much is charged? Ridiculous. We have free healthcare, and unlike what a lot of ignorant Americans were saying about our system being 'socialist' (their way of saying 'communism'), you DO have option for going private if you wish to pay for it. EVERYBODY deserves basic healthcare without having financial worry, and its even more so a necessity for such a developed country.
Too many selfish ignorants in America, so unhappy that other less fortunate will get access to basic healthcare now? pfft.
Re: First Step
[info]alheimstead wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 05:34 am (UTC)
NOOOO unite, we do not have the choice of going private!!!!!
Re: First Step
[info]alheimstead wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:06 am (UTC)
Unite,
Recently, I attended an international global accounting conference with my better half which was held at Philadelphia, PA. First question asked by internationals concerned our HC debate. Second, because of liberal propaganda, they all had your same response. These folks could not understand why we do not have HC for all. Actually, we do. It’s Medicare, Medicaid and if one does not have these the answer is ER. We take oaths - “DO NO HARM.” This HC would violate this oath. [Medicaid went broke.].

See, our HC system is not broken at all, contrary to what Obama and Pelosi have convinced many of. But, HC will become broken if left to the radical liberals. They used Chicago politics to force their will on many in Congress. They had groups raising $$ to smear anyone that voted against this Pelosiscam. This non sense won’t work as well in Senate. Our system does need fixing in certain areas. All doctors agree to this. But we do not need complete government takeover of our Health Care system. Obama wishes to unionize all medical and we don’t want to be his b-t-h. Again, “we” will not have choice of private insurance. We also do not have choice of purchasing the same policy Obama, Pelosi, Congress, Senate, etc…will have…..The tax increases in this bill are like never seen before. Just like many regret their presidential vote last year, so the same will be if this 2000 page bill becomes law. I have read this monster HC tax bill and it is not pretty.
Re: First Step
[info]felipe_segundo wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:08 pm (UTC)
If the above is the case why are the majority of American bankruptcies healthcare related?

What is more, since when has the bill proposed 'complete government takeover of our Health Care system'?

Oh, and thirdly, what exactly is wrong with 'complete government takeover of our Health Care system' anyway? We have such a system in the UK - it's called the NHS - and we as a nation spend far less per capita on healthcare than the US.
Re: First Step:more a roll backwards than step forward
[info]nycartist wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:53 pm (UTC)
It's a fake call of progress. Kucinich says it well on DemocracyNow today. www.democracynow.org video and/or transcript. Also Jane Hamsher of www.firedoglake.com was guest with him on Dem.Now.
Nothing to write home about
[info]find_empire wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 05:19 am (UTC)
He won by a mere whisker and failed to convince 39 of members his own party. It remains to be seen what sort of boondoggles and pork his whips promised during the weeks of horse-trading for the wafer-thin majority. Obummer sold off some more of the family silver merely to slow his decline in the polls. If this bill goes through the senate, Yanks will be stuck with a new health care system they can't pay for while dumping the old one - medicare and medicaid - thus ending up worse off than they were before, which is what seems to be Obummer's mission as the Kenyan candidate.
Re: Nothing to write home about
[info]alheimstead wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 05:39 am (UTC)
Hi find,
Hey, Obama was down 3 points from yesterday. This Obambam HC tax bill will be his waterloo.....If this bill were wriiten with America's best interest in mind ---- no problem. But, "IT" was not. Watch, Granny is fixing to kick butt.
Re: Nothing to write home about
[info]find_empire wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 07:27 am (UTC)

Health bill 'will not pass Senate'



(UKPA) – 33 minutes ago

The glow from a healthcare triumph has faded quickly for US President Barack Obama as Democrats realised the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House of Representatives has nowhere to go in the Senate.

Speaking from the White House about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, the president urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people".

The problem is that the Senate won't run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote", said Senator Joe Lieberman, the independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome Republican manoeuvres to kill the bill.

"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Republican senator Lindsey Graham said.
Pandora's Box
[info]alheimstead wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 05:31 am (UTC)
Remember Pandora's box? This bill is an excellent example. But, this Obamacon-Pelosi-scam bill will not pass in Senate as is. Even usage via of Chicago politics this bill passed House with only a mere 5 votes....Part 1 was passed earlier this year. Pelosi hid Part 1 inside the stimulus bill. Part 1 dictates steps doctors must take with each patient. Also, it authorizes two separate organizations to set up and reign over HC. One organization is in charge of these so called panels. Palosi was right after all. I am Medical, and this bill is bad news and should be renamed - "TAX" bill.
Obama and Health Care
[info]alykhansatchu wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:07 am (UTC)
One senses that the President is much more engaged with his Domestic Policy and Health is very much at the very centre of that Agenda. Health has been a quite intractable problem [Costs too much and does not cover enough Folk] and this is therefore a signal triumph. Karzai, Afghanistan et al can wait a moment.

Aly-Khan Satchu
www.rich.co.ke
Twitter alykhansatchu
Pandora's Box
[info]alheimstead wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:17 am (UTC)
Remember Pandora's box? This bill is an excellent example. But, this Obamacon-Pelosiscam bill will not pass Senate as is. Even usage of Chicago politics this bill passed the House with a mere 5 votes....Part 1 was passed earlier this year. Pelosi hid Part 1 inside the stimulus bill. Part 1 dictates steps doctors must take with each patient. Also sets up two separate organizations to regn over HC. One organization sets up the so called panels. Palosi was right after all. I am Medical, and this bill is bad news and should be renamed - "TAX" bill.
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice"
[info]sirajul wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 08:00 am (UTC)
The finest moment was when President Obama cited his victory speech, saying that this was their chance to bend “the arc of history.” That phrase came from a Martin Luther King, Jr. catchphrase Obama often used to end his campaign speeches “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
[info]herbtibb wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 10:15 am (UTC)
I guess the real issue facing Americans and which will no doubt divide them over the health care insurance etc debate is : Is it really a better deal?
No - it's only a good deal for insurance industry
[info]nycartist wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:54 pm (UTC)
It's a Potemkin Village - fake facade.
If it's broke, fix it
[info]lasvegasrich wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 03:02 pm (UTC)
You Brits may be interested to know that Republicans claim that your NHS gives you abysmal care, and then with a straight face, they claim that the USA has the best medical care in the WORLD! America spends abut twice what other industrialized nations spend on healthcare, and still over 40, 000,000 Americans have no health insurance. This bill would provide 96% of Americans with insurance, and barely passed in the House of Representives. The system was broke, and needed fixing. Thank God for SOH Nancy Pelosi, and the Democrats who voted for this bill.
Re: If it's broke, fix it - in this case: the fix was in - for health care insurers
[info]nycartist wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:56 pm (UTC)
It doesn't fix it for us in US. See www.democracynow.org and why Dennis Kucinich voted "NO". He's a guest today.
No bill is better than the wrong bill
[info]mad4plaidmn wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 03:08 pm (UTC)
I am in favor of health care reform. I'm single and receive health care through my employer. It's A LOT of money every month. But my friend who has a family of five and also receives health care through her employer pays over $1200 a month for coverage (no underlying health issues in any of her kids), and still has deductibles of $4,000 out of pocket each year.

While I think we need to make coverage available for everyone, we really need full healthcare reform - including drug costs (why can I buy a packet of paracetemol in the UK for 99 pence but the same packet in the US will cost over $5?).

All that being said, Pelosi railroaded through a bill that takes away the ability of many Americans (read: women) to make an educated choice regarding reproduction, thanks to a Friday night amendment by Rep. Stupak. This, along with all the other compromises that will have to be given before the bill becomes law will result in something that will not give Americans what we need, nor what Obama wanted.
Re: No bill is better than the wrong bill - I'd just say "bad" bill makes it worse
[info]nycartist wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:57 pm (UTC)
Jane Hamsher with Dennis Kucinich on DemocracyNow today addresses the last minute Stupak amendment. Phooey.
www.democracynow.org Video and transcript on website.
victory for health insurance co's and a Potemkin Village
[info]nycartist wrote:
Monday, 9 November 2009 at 06:49 pm (UTC)
US Representative (House of Reps) Dennis Kucinich, who is married to a woman from England, has a good interview on DemocracyNow today on why he voted "NO" for the legislation that is not good for people. www.democracynow.org He is on the show with Jane Hamsher, who is founder of www.firedoglake.com a blog. She speaks on the last minute amendment that will keep women from getting a choice to have an abortion as any insurance co. getting money from gov't will not be able to pay for an abortion. Hamsher is a breast cancer survivor and recently pointed out on FDL that women with breast cancer will not have coverage for many medications in this legislation.

I am calling it a Potemkin Village: fake false mirage behind the front wall.

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date