找回密码
 注册
搜索
查看: 2546|回复: 39

[转贴] House passes health care bill on close vote

[复制链接]
发表于 2009-11-8 03:38 AM | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式


In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
AP - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, center, is joined by (L-R) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. ...

AP - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, center, is joined by (L-R) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif. ...

The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin a long-delayed debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later -- and Obama issued a statement saying, "I look forward to signing it into law by the end of the year."

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.

Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies sold by private firms.

A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed."

The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.

From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."

In his written statement, Obama praised the House's action and said, "now the United State Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will."

Minority Republicans cataloged their objections across hours of debate on the 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation.

"We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, `this is making me sick,'" jabbed Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., adding that Democrats were intent on passing "a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding" bill.

But with little doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer's town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting "death panels" to hasten the demise of senior citizens.

The bill is projected to expand coverage to 36 million uninsured, resulting in 96 percent of the nation's eligible population having insurance.

To pay for the expansion of coverage, the bill cuts Medicare's projected spending by more than $400 billion over a decade. It also imposes a tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on income over $500,000 in the case of individuals and $1 million for families.

The bill was estimated to reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, although it lacked two of the key cost-cutting provisions under consideration in the Senate, and its longer-term impact on government red ink was far from clear.

Democrats lined up a range of outside groups behind their legislation, none more important than the AARP, whose support promises political cover against the cuts to Medicare in next year's congressional elections.

The nation's drug companies generally support health care overhaul. And while the powerful insurance industry opposed the legislation, it did so quietly, and the result was that Republicans could not count on the type of advertising campaign that might have peeled away skittish Democrats in swing districts.

Over all, the bill envisioned the most sweeping set of changes to the health care system in more than a generation, and Democrats said it marked the culmination of a campaign that Harry Truman began when he sat in the White House 60 years ago.

Debate on the House floor had already begun when Obama strode into a closed-door meeting of the Democratic rank and file across the street from the Capitol to make a final personal appeal to them to pass his top domestic priority.

Later, in an appearance at the White House, he said he had told lawmakers, "to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America."

It appeared that a compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion had finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.

As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.

But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.

Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but pulled back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.

One, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., detailed numerous other benefits for women in the bill, including free medical preventive services and better prescription drug coverage under Medicare. "Women need health care reform," she concluded in remarks on the House floor.

A Republican alternative was rejected on a near party line vote of 258-176.

It relied heavily on loosening regulations on private insurers to reduce costs for those who currently have insurance, in some cases by as much as 10 percent. But congressional budget analysts said the plan would make no dent in the ranks of the uninsured, an assessment that highlighted the difference in priorities between the two political parties.

Associated Press writers Phil Elliott, Alan Fram and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
发表于 2009-11-8 08:50 AM | 显示全部楼层
Bingo
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 09:33 AM | 显示全部楼层
2# 牛二买刀

http://www.reuters.com/article/p ... lBrandChannel=11624

FACTBOX: Health company winners, losers in U.S. House bill


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted 220-215 on Saturday to pass legislation overhauling the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system.

The Senate must also vote on its version of a bill, which is not expected until December at the earliest, and both chambers would then meet to work out a final measure.

Following are some of the winners and losers in the U.S. healthcare industry based on language in the House bill.

LOSERS ...

HEALTH INSURERS

Health insurers such as UnitedHealth Group Inc, Cigna Corp and others could see greater competition, more scrutiny and fewer protections under the bill.

The sector has said it would take a big hit from a government-run insurance plan that Democrats say would force insurers to streamline. Cooperative exchanges and the sale of insurance plans across state lines also aim to give consumers more information and choices that could redefine the market.

Profit margins could also shrink with the bill, forcing insurers to give customer rebates if less than 85 percent of an enrollee's premiums are spent on actual care.

The public plan itself could also undercut insurers by paying doctors, hospitals and others rates as low as those offered by the Medicare plan for the elderly and disabled. Rate hikes by private insurers would also be scrutinized.

The bill also eliminates the exemption health insurers had from antitrust laws, explicitly barring them from price fixing, bid-rigging or dividing up markets.

And while individuals would have to buy a plan or pay a fee -- a move backed by insurers -- more smaller businesses would be exempt from the requirement to offer coverage.

Government reimbursement for private Medicare Advantage health plans would also see cuts.

DRUGMAKERS

Drugmakers would take a larger hit under the House bill than with another Senate version, which included an agreement with the industry to provide $80 billion worth of savings over 10 years.

The House version would require drug companies to pay rebates to the government for drugs used by elderly and disabled Medicare patients who also are on Medicaid, the health program for the poor. It also would require the health secretary to negotiate drug prices under Medicare.

Drugmakers, which include Pfizer Inc, GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Merck & Co Inc and others, have opposed both ideas. The House bill would gradually eliminate the Medicare "doughnut hole," when prescription drug costs are not covered, by 2019. The drug industry had agreed to provide a 50 percent discount for drugs in the doughnut hole over the next decade.

... AND WINNERS

DEVICEMAKERS

Lobbyists representing medical devicemakers such as Boston Scientific Corp, Medtronic Inc and Stryker Corp successfully whittled down an expected $4 billion annual fee to $2 billion. The industry had wanted the fee removed altogether.

BIOLOGIC DRUGMAKERS

Brand-name makers of biotechnology drugs would see their medicines protected from cheaper copycats for at least 12 years. This is a win for the brand-name companies, such as Amgen Inc and Roche Holding AG's Genentech unit, and a defeat for generic drugmakers that want a shorter period.

(Editing by Doina Chiacu)
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 11:05 AM | 显示全部楼层
Private operated medical practice charges too much, eg, Orthodontics charge $235 per visit, but Metlife only pays $24.80.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 11:32 AM | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 bobcat 于 2009-11-8 11:44 编辑
Private operated medical practice charges too much, eg, Orthodontics charge $235 per visit, but Metlife only pays $24.80.
maplayer 发表于 2009-11-8 11:05


主要是因为国会拿到了他们的好处,不允许给外国学生医学院奖学金。

此外美国国内各项服务价格已很高。譬如我请一个木工,2小时,$650工钱,材料价及
购买耗时费用另算。我请电工一人,他再带了个小工,安装风扇,约两小时,仅工钱 超过 $800。
大家还可以去问问,如果你需要一个不规则尺寸镜框,3x5.5 的尺寸,只能请人做。全部价钱
很可能超过 $700。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 11:43 AM | 显示全部楼层
所以医生怨声载道,说他们这些年挣得少了。他们大多数没有股票交易员挣得多。
所以医生也争相炒股。胡同一定也有医生吧?:)
医生中听说只有心脏外科及脑神经科的可能拿到7位数的高薪,不知对不对?
此外医生是最辛苦的职业,如不能拿到高薪,医疗水平就会下降。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 12:12 PM | 显示全部楼层
所以医生怨声载道,说他们这些年挣得少了。他们大多数没有股票交易员挣得多。
所以医生也争相炒股。胡同一定也有医生吧?:)
医生中听说只有心脏外科及脑神经科的可能拿到7位数的高薪,不知对不对?
此外医生是最 ...
bobcat 发表于 2009-11-8 11:43


其实,医疗水平下降没关系,医疗的覆盖面加大是首要解决的问题。美国现在先要解决有没有,然后才谈的上好不好。
20%的失业率,保守估计有30~40%的人没有医保(包括小孩)。生了病就等死?再高超的医疗水平,对这些人也是枉然。其实大多数时候,他们需要的也就是开个抗生素,打个石膏绷带什么的,中国社区医院的医生都能搞定,没那么复杂。
其实当年老毛根据国情,提倡赤脚医生和知青下乡是很厉害的一招。普及了医疗,几乎消灭了文盲,为中国有今天的发展奠定了基础。(当然,是很暴力,牺牲一些人的利益。)
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 12:15 PM | 显示全部楼层
主要是因为国会拿到了他们的好处,不允许给外国学生医学院奖学金。

此外美国国内各项服务价格已很高。譬如我请一个木工,2小时,$650工钱,材料价及
购买耗时费用另算。我请电工一人,他再带了个小工,安装风 ...
bobcat 发表于 2009-11-8 11:32


所以,家里的活都只能自己做,安个吊扇,装个木地板,修个deck等等。美元在人工费用上,其实挺不值钱的。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 12:43 PM | 显示全部楼层
主要是因为国会拿到了他们的好处,不允许给外国学生医学院奖学金。

此外美国国内各项服务价格已很高。譬如我请一个木工,2小时,$650工钱,材料价及
购买耗时费用另算。我请电工一人,他再带了个小工,安装风 ...
bobcat 发表于 2009-11-8 11:32


怎么这么贵啊,木工$325小时工资?岂不是比医生,律师,IT民工等等都要高?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 12:52 PM | 显示全部楼层
利好?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 01:06 PM | 显示全部楼层
8# 牛二买刀

It's possible to be a home repair handyman but almost impossible be a medical handyman (license requirement?).
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 01:47 PM | 显示全部楼层
8# 牛二买刀

It's possible to be a home repair handyman but almost impossible be a medical handyman (license requirement?).
maplayer 发表于 2009-11-8 13:06


自己在家里修修补补,不需要license吧?感冒了自己买几片药吃或者弄几味中药补补,也不需要license吧?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 02:22 PM | 显示全部楼层
自己在家里修修补补,不需要license吧?感冒了自己买几片药吃或者弄几味中药补补,也不需要license吧?
padme 发表于 2009-11-8 13:47

Only limit to over-the-counter medicine, prescription medicine, such as anti-biotics require prescription.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 02:52 PM | 显示全部楼层
其实,医疗水平下降没关系,医疗的覆盖面加大是首要解决的问题。美国现在先要解决有没有,然后才谈的上好不好。
20%的失业率,保守估计有30~40%的人没有医保(包括小孩)。生了病就等死?再高超的医疗水平,对 ...
牛二买刀 发表于 2009-11-8 12:12


美国没有医保的人都去急诊就医,不会等死
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 02:53 PM | 显示全部楼层
中国没有医保的人,有时真的只能等死
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 02:59 PM | 显示全部楼层
要知道,美国缺乏医生是国会多年来有意造成的。无论用什么办法,也不可能解决这一问题。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 03:07 PM | 显示全部楼层
中国没有医保的人,有时真的只能等死
bobcat 发表于 2009-11-8 14:53


可不可以以此为契机推动中国的全民医保啊。看,资本主义的美国都实行全民医保了,社会主义中国没理由不实行全民医保啊。

有个问题请教一下,改革开放之前,中国有没有实行过全民医保?有谁知道?
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 03:17 PM | 显示全部楼层
可不可以以此为契机推动中国的全民医保啊。看,资本主义的美国都实行全民医保了,社会主义中国没理由不实行全民医保啊。

有个问题请教一下,改革开放之前,中国有没有实行过全民医保?有谁知道?
padme 发表于 2009-11-8 15:07

In the city maybe, but vast countryside was not, and thus the bear foot doctors.
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 03:36 PM | 显示全部楼层
怎么这么贵啊,木工$325小时工资?岂不是比医生,律师,IT民工等等都要高?
padme 发表于 2009-11-8 12:43


我问过一个木工,他说现代人不愿学手艺,都想拿个学位。
听一个美国朋友讲过这样一个笑话:

一个医生请了个水管工修马桶,要 $200 一小时。医生问怎么这样贵? 他当医生才收 $150 一小时。
水管工回答说他很羡慕这位医生。并说自己以前当医生时一小时只收 $100。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

发表于 2009-11-8 03:44 PM | 显示全部楼层
可不可以以此为契机推动中国的全民医保啊。看,资本主义的美国都实行全民医保了,社会主义中国没理由不实行全民医保啊。

有个问题请教一下,改革开放之前,中国有没有实行过全民医保?有谁知道?
padme 发表于 2009-11-8 15:07


以前农村没有,因为农民不算政府雇员。这是工农剪刀差的延伸,中国农民在新中国始终处于社会的底层。
现在就算是有医保的城市人口,往往仍因得不到贵重的进口药物(医保不包括)而等死。
回复 鲜花 鸡蛋

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

手机版|小黑屋|www.hutong9.net

GMT-5, 2024-5-14 03:06 PM , Processed in 0.083599 second(s), 14 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.5

© 2001-2024 Discuz! Team.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表