Two More Yes Votes

[we vs us]

WASHINGTON, D.C. --  At a news conference in Washington, D.C. Thursday, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn vowed to block any special deals for House members who switch their vote from "no" to "yes" on the healthcare bill.

http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12164486

I'm surprised to hear there were deals he wasn't already blocking. 

[we vs us]

So the vote today is at 5:30pm EST.  The breaking news crawl on MSNBC says that Pelosi has the 216 votes needed for passage.  I haven't seen that on other news nets yet, but I expect to.  I have a feeling Pelosi's known for awhile now that she has the votes, she's just letting momentum build by having undecided Dems each announce one at a time. 

Politically, any bill at this point is good for the D's.  It shows that Washington isn't as completely broken as it first looked and that the D's can in fact get it together enough to pass legislation.  I will be interested to see if this tempers the R's momentum going into the midterms.  There's a sense that maybe the R insurgency peaked too early, and that the D midterm losses might not be quite as bad as first thought.  We're pretty far away, though, and there's much still that can happen.  Like an immigration bill, for instance.

And the Tea Party?  Still staying classy (by storming the Capitol building, calling Rep John Lewis a ni**er, Barney Frank a fa**ot, and spitting on other assorted Democratic congressfolk).

[JeffM]

Well wevus, I think the implementation of this plan is gonna go down like the smoking ban in Chicago-- all the bars will have a few years to build outdoor decks before the law is actually fully implemented....  

I was for either a plan that did NOT have an individual mandate or a public option.... or if a plan had an individual mandate, that there'd be a "public option".....

No individual mandate + no public option = Nixoncare
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

...offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:

--Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;

--Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured; and,

--An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
One of these three plans would be available to every American, but for everyone, participation in the program would be voluntary.

The benefits offered by the three plans would be identical for all Americans, regardless of age or income. Benefits would be provided for:
--hospital care;
--physicians' care in and out of the hospital;
--prescription and life-saving drugs;
--laboratory tests and X-rays;
--medical devices;
--ambulance services; and,
--other ancillary health care.

There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.

So..... over 35 years later.....

I think the only way Olympia Snowe would support this bill is if there were no individual mandates.....
I think the only way alot of the health industry's players would support this bill is with the inclusion of an individual mandate....
I think the only way liberal dems would support this bill is with the inclusion of a public option.....

After the smoke clears, what will we get?

Individual mandate + no public option = Romneycare.

Rahmbo gets to do the happy dance....

If this thing passes, it's gonna be political "Waterloo" for somebody, alright.....

His name is...... Mitt Romney.

Romneycare Sure Looks Like Obamacare
March 12th, 2010 at 12:20 am by David Frum
http://www.frumforum.com/defending-romneycare

Good luck explaining the subtle differences between Romneycare and Obamacare to the typical vitriolic-hyperbolic-activist primary voter in your race for the Republican nomination for 2012....

[Conan71]

Romney is curiously silent if he's planning to run in 2012. 

Under Romneycare, health care costs have gone up in Mass.  No real surprise there.

"Mr. Romney's promise that getting everyone covered would force costs down also is far from being realized. One third of state residents polled by Harvard researchers in a study published in "Health Affairs" in 2008 said that their health costs had gone up as a result of the 2006 reforms. A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country. Per capita spending is 27% higher than the national average. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115691871093652.html

[nathanm]

A typical family of four today faces total annual health costs of nearly $13,788, the highest in the country. Per capita spending is 27% higher than the national average. "

I believe that was the case before Romney's plan, also. You can therefore state that in a risk pool as small as the State of Massachusetts, an individual mandate does not bring costs down nor prevent them from going up at the same rate they did before.

Were you the one screaming about a socialist takeover of health care, or was that Gaspar? Either way, this is certainly not that.