Democrats vote to bypass health reform filibuster

By The Associated Press
Saturday, November 21st, 2009 -- 3:24 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

reidserious Democrats vote to bypass health reform filibusterInvoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.

The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.

The spectator galleries were full for the unusual Saturday night showdown, and applause broke out briefly when the vote was announced. In a measure of the significance of the moment, senators sat quietly in their seats, standing only when they were called upon to vote.

In the final minutes of a daylong session, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of trying to stifle a historic debate the nation needed.

"Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities the right to vote, those who disagreed had muted discussion and killed any vote," he said.

Story continues below...

The Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the vote was anything but procedural — casting it as a referendum on the bill itself, which he said would raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a "massive and unsustainable debt."

For all the drama, the result of the Saturday night showdown had been sealed a few hours earlier, when two final Democratic holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced they would join in clearing the way for a full debate.

"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who won $100 million in the legislation to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.

Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election next year, said the evening vote will "mark the beginning of consideration of this bill by the U.S. Senate, not the end."

Both stressed they were not committing in advance to vote for the bill that ultimately emerges from next month's debate.

Of particular contentiousness to moderates is a provision for the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, subject to state approval — a part of Reid's bill expected to come under significant pressure as the debate unfolds.

Even so, their announcements marked a major victory for Reid and the White House in a year-end drive to enact the most sweeping changes to the nation's health care system in a half-century or more.

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement saying the president was gratified by the vote, which he says "brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it."

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide subsidies to those who couldn't afford it. Large companies could incur costs if they did not provide coverage to their workforce. The insurance industry would come under significant new regulation under the bill, which would first ease and then ban the practice of denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

--Full story continues below--

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • lorn
    This staged high drama is going to fool a lot of people.

    What if this big fight for health care was really a massive bailout for the insurance industry?

    What if the corporate swine who rule both political parties calculated that after the botched bank bailout, the auto bailout and stimulus bailout (almost $2TRILLION from people to companies) that people wouldn't stand for another one?

    Would those criminals in Washington dare to give big insurance hundreds of billions more of our tax dollars? Yes, but since they are not stupid and they believe that we are.........they will give it a new name.

    Health care. Nice name for a bailout.
    Too bad it doesn't actually give us any health care, and that it gives the anti abortion nazis their biggest victory in decades by defunding abortion for poor women.
    None of that matters.

    Media will spin this as health care. Media will tell people that Dems are good people fighting hard for health care, while Repubs are rich bad guys who hate giving health care to the public.
    It is a big lie. Both sides work together as usual to screw the taxpayer and help the corporate master.
    Most people here are smart enough to know that Dennis Kucinich is a trustworthy servant of the people. He says this scam is an insurance industry bailout. Do you believe him or corporate media?
    http://rawstory.com/2009/10/kucinich-health-ref...
    plenty more on the DK website.
  • Savantster
    .
    "Too bad it doesn't actually give us any health care,"

    Actually, if they leave in the "can't drop" and "must take new clients" portions, that's a huge thing right there. Today, denying claims and dumping people off coverage is a huge problem.

    It is _also_ a bailout (to cover the costs of losses from the other two provisions), but it's hard to see how to avoid one without the other (unless you remove insurance all together and go Single Payer, which was not on the table to begin with). In fact, the Public Option is a way to dilute the bailout effect, but as noted by the right-wing (probably rightly), it would kill some insurance companies (because the public would not want to pay more than they needed to for the same coverage.. duh?).. that would eventually lead to Single Payer (good thing), but the right-wing fearmongers that route by calling it "government run health care" (a lie and distortion).

    If there was no mandated coverage, people would abuse the new provisions to insurance (must cover, must accept). That doesn't seem fair, either.. so the mandate to carry insurance is because people are simply too greedy and dishonest.. something we breed in this country from the top down (hence, war criminals are still living in mansions and living cushy lives).
    .
  • lorn
    WOW!!!

    Is this the type of explanation we can expect from the damage control division of the Democratic party? I am going to quote you, just for effect......

    "
    If there was no mandated coverage, people would abuse the new provisions to insurance (must cover, must accept). That doesn't seem fair, either.. so the mandate to carry insurance is because people are simply too greedy and dishonest."

    You sure do love defending those corporate criminals from those "greedy dishonest abusive" American citizens. You are a PERFECT example of the modern day corporate Democrat. This is why the party is broken.
  • thepoliticalcat
    The fact of the matter is that the mandatory coverage provision has been under discussion for some 12 months now and most people who have any interest in reforming health care have agreed that, without the mandatory coverage provision, young healthy people will put off contributing to the insurance pool *until* they are facing devastating illness. The only way public health care can work is to have the pool large enough to cover all participants. Surely you're not raising these concerns at the 11th hour with any seriousness.
  • randallspencer
    The $Republicans$ don't even want to sit down and talk about fixing healthcare. Talk about hypocrites. At least sit down and talk. But no. that is too much for them. They would just rather sit back and continue to make millions off of the suffering of the common man. They just want to say NO, NO, NO, NO, NO to absolutely anything and everything that the Democrats do. Nevermind that it was this very thing that has gotten them out of the majority party and will continue to keep them out of the majority party.
  • truthops2010
    A party committing political suicide while servicing corporations like whores (no offense to sex workers) at the same time is difficult to stomach. The personal mandate, hardly discussed on "progressive" talk, or even on Maddow or Olberman, is the single biggest political mistake, and more importantly, and indeed is an attack on our freedom. I don't mean to sound like a cheezy Republican, but how else does one interpret the federal government keeping track of whether or not you are purchasing something? That emergency rooms don't charge for their services to the uninsured is a myth. Try telling the person who gets a letter detailing 30,000 dollars of "care" for a few hours stay, and threats of collections, etc. My roommate got such a letter after he went to the emergency room after his heart was freaking out on him. They stabilized him, ran some tests, and sent him on his merry way. Two business days later, the bill arrived in the mail, and he managed to get about half knocked off. So now he just owes 15,000. Anyway, the myth that it is emergency rooms are forced to give away health care is the basis behind the "personal responsibility" argument for the personal mandate. How about the personal responsibility of our Representatives in Congress, having allowed monopolies to emerge, such that their dominance results in vastly overpriced medical services that disallow families to afford such services, which lands them in emergency rooms and leaving with bills in the 10s of thousands? And for that thar personal mandate. Perhaps someone on this forum can answer the following questions, because repeated calls to my Senators Boxer, and Feinstein have been fruitless. Is the fine for not purchasing insurance going to be pro-rated, relative to how many months of a year you went uncovered? Is the fine going to be a wage garnisment, or come out of any tax return, or added to your taxes owed? How is that money going to be used? Does any percentage of the fine payed come back to the person fined if that person purchases insurance? Will there be a waver, if you spent money at a local low cost clinic, or spent money with an alternative medical care provider such as a nutritionist, physical therapist, accupuncturist, etc....the type of care often not covered by private insurance? Just think of how much insurance companies, and big pharma, are going to raise their premiums in the interim before 2013, in an effort to be in even better position when the federal government forces millions into coverage. After this thing kicks in, and people get a taste of this "big government" bureaucracy mandating their lives, the Republicans for once will be able to accurately point to the Democrats of having instituted a big government control on their lives. Thus, the political suicide. The Democratic leadership, led by Obama, completely ignored single payer, which would have been not only the right thing to do, but would have insured their political future, pardon the pun.
  • billofatlier
    you forgot to mention in all your blah blah blah that you are a lobbyist for the money grubbing H M Hoes.
  • lorn
    Good observation billo

    Notice too how 3/4 of the thread is taken up by edwards_ navel gazing blah blah blah on technology etc. Not one word about DEMOCRATS screwing us out of health care.
    He filibustered the whole thread.
    Just one more tactic in the arsenal of Democratic party trolls.
  • Savantster
    .
    "Anyway, the myth that it is emergency rooms are forced to give away health care is the basis behind the "personal responsibility" argument for the personal mandate."

    Actually, Obama clearly stated during his speech a few months ago that the mandate was because there are people out there willing to not carry insurance until they "get sick" (not just an emergency room kind of hurt, cancer sick), then buy insurance from a company that can not say "no".. that means the "bad person" has paid nothing into the system for years, but now gets all their bills covered? ... that means you and me paid into a system that pays out to people who refuse to contribute. That's not fair either.. and if "everyone" decided to wait until they got sick to get insurance, there wouldn't be any money to cover people.. right?

    The only solution is Single Payer.. and the government takes a snip from every paycheck and every dollar of profit.. Then we all pay in and we all have access.. fair, right? and logical.. but, seen as an assault on freedoms, somehow... cause living in a society is apparently supposed to be free or something.
    .
  • Boson Bison
    Individuals are free to make their own contracts. Some are "inalienable rights," some have been negotiated without our consent, even before our own birth. Living in a society is not free. But it should not be enslavement. Modern medicine is wonderful for catastrophic coverage, but not for the induced/marketed sicknesses (chronic diseases a.k.a. pharmaceutical prescriptions). What would I do without "Flomax?"
  • Savantster
    .
    Again, if you want to get to the "root" of the problem, the problem is money and the few squatting on natural resources that rightfully belong to the entire population. Private ownership and the drive for profits are the problem.

    Modern Medicine (don't confuse that with insurance, or "catastrophic" anything) is knowledge. It's science. Suggesting someone has a right to charge you for knowledge that could save your life (or just make it a little better) flies in the face of civilized society and science all together. When someone holds information over your head and will let you die unless you pay them, that's extortion.

    We have the technology to keep everyone relatively healthy, and sick people spread diseases so it makes sense to the greater public to prevent those diseases from spreading around.. yet, if we don't provide care to those who need it, we encourage sickness in our society.. right? General Welfare means keeping diseases in check, and that takes money (in our society).. the vehicle for that today is "health insurance" which goes beyond catastrophic (we understand preventative is much cheaper over the long run, and offers much less suffering over the long run). We've come to expect "insurance" to cover "everything", which isn't as profitable as only taking care of some things.

    For example, babies. Those are a choice (mostly), so why should insurance cover them? Yet, in our society, a lot of people couldn't afford to have babies if they didn't have insurance spreading the cost around. And, in fact, insurance is trying to avoid covering babies (birth) now.

    Because health is required to live, and being healthy is mostly based on medicine and knowledge, it moves out of the realm of "consumer goods", and in to the realm of police and fire and highways and the like. If we want private doctors, that's fine.. but paying them should be nationalized. Then most of these current "issues" go away.

    Ideally, we'd get rid of money all together, and just let everyone live their lives as they see fit. Resource based economy instead of a money based one. That requires we return the global resources, the planet, to everyone and not let it be kept in the hands of the few who happened to be lucky enough to be born before the rest of us. We're all here, against our will, for good or bad, and we all have the same right to life. That means we all have the same right to natural resources required to live... right?
    .
  • Boson Bison
    There is an overabundance of techology that CAUSES DISEASES, by manufacturing the NEED to keep the medical profession going. The claim that "sick people spread diseases" is a glaringly not-well-thought-out statement. This goes more deeply into germ theory and intimate behavior. More importantly, how does "technology" decide for a person their own lifestyle/behavior choices? The "Venus Project" is decidedly "The few deciding for the many." An individual gathers information and resources on his/her own volition. Vodka or Veggies?
    The statement "Being healthy is mostly based on medicine and knowledge" proclaims that one entity has medicine and knowledge that they claim the "sick people" can't live without. Fuck you elitist professors!!!! I want my decent, well-paying job, my own book collection, my own personal medicines, my own choice of relationships, and goddammit, COLD HARD CASH and not an RFID MICROCHIP bank/health/prostitute account.
  • Savantster
    .
    You clearly didn't watch any of Jacque Fresco’s information, or you'd know he does NOT support "a small group of people" making decisions. The entire premise is individuals deciding for themselves. Educated individuals (which is every single person in that society) making informed decisions.

    And "technology" does not create disease, how it's implemented is what can cause disease. And some diseases are simply biology and exist regardless of technology. And some diseases are best combated via technology (think the Plague and anti-biotics).

    "The claim that "sick people spread diseases" is a glaringly not-well-thought-out statement. "

    That you don't understand communicable diseases means you don't have much to say on the matter. If a person sick with a communicable disease coughs in public, they could infect other people. If you cure that person of their disease, they don't have a disease to spread.. think tuberculosis. How the hell is that a poorly thought out statement?

    "More importantly, how does "technology" decide for a person their own lifestyle/behavior choices? "

    Well, since EVERY aspect of your life is intimately tied to technology, I guess any choice you make will pretty much involve it, right? But, "technology" doesn't decide anything, people do. And they make decisions based on the technology available to them. That you don't understand this simple context, and seem a technophobe, tells me you need much more education on the subject.

    "The statement "Being healthy is mostly based on medicine and knowledge" proclaims that one entity has medicine and knowledge that they claim the "sick people" can't live without. Fuck you elitist professors!!!!"

    Clearly, you didn't read (or failed to comprehend) what I said. Knowledge should NOT belong in the hands of the few for the exact reason you're suggesting (exploitation).. only, today, the knowledge (and medicine) IS in the hands of the few, and they DO exploit you for you to get access to it, and they DO cause more disease to facilitate MORE exploitation. If that knowledge was readily (and FREELY) available to EVERYONE, there would be NO BENEFIT to "make people sick", now would there.

    Why do you want a "book collection"? Oh, right, so you can read your book any time you want... right? without having to wait for it to be back at the library? You're referencing "limited resources", and using that as a frame for what you want today.. but what if you had access to EVERY book EVER written, free, on demand, always? What would be the point of a "book collection" then? You want the access to the knowledge/information on demand, and there's nothing wrong with that.. but you don't need "your own book collection" to do that. In fact, if you had a "book collection" and went on vacation, you'd not have access to your books when you wanted them, would you.. yet, if you had an electronic wireless reader that could down load it anywhere on the planet, you could read any book in the world at any time without carrying around a huge book collection, right?

    And what the hell is this RFID chip thing coming from? You DO realize that that device only exists to track PRIVATE PROPERTY (including people), right? No property, and those chips no longer have a nefarious potential.. no banks, no money, no bills, no one cutting you off from "your money".

    And what is the "own choice of relationships"? How do you think the Venus Project would limit your relationships? If nothing else, it would expand your ability to have more relationships because the class structure would be gone, and travel would be free, you could go anyplace and meet anyone anytime.

    job? forced to work? why? Wouldn't it be better if you could "work" when you wanted to and "not work" when you felt like it? Doing pure research on topics that tickled your fancy any time you wanted?

    It's people like you that scare me the most. Hard fast opinions not rooted in any kind of reality (with regard to what's being discussed at hand). I doubt you've ever watched Zeitgeist Addendum, have you.
    .
  • Boson Bison
    Jacques Fresco and the Zeitgeist Addendum.......I understand Krishnamurti's diagnosis of the problem. I do not support the proposed cure. There is an integrity which is essential to life, to have a tangible, local connection with the life that feeds and breathes in our local space. I disagree with the fact that "EVERY aspect of my life is intimately tied to technology." I seek out organic, natural experience. The Bubonic Plague and AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) BOTH resulted from humans living in proximity to or ingesting FECAL MATTER. The so-called "virus" is a technological marker which is applied randomly or at will.
    You can have Jacques Fresco and the Zeitgeist Addendum as your "Hard Fast Opinions." Every man has his "Be all and End all scriptures." yours would be Jacques Fresco.
    My desire to work honestly for my own keep is ingrained in me spiritually and biologically. Leisure with disregard for effort expended is spiritual decay. The emergent technological system is a metaphysical "line of credit" which someday must be repaid.
  • suzisunshine
    enjoy your comments and thank you for using paragraphs:)Does anybody read those long comments that don't use them? I don't,I can't.
  • chop98
    Your "hard, fast opinions" are what scare the hell out of regular folks as well. You're giving into technology all together. It sounds as if you're wanting a utopian society to spring up tomorrow. Are you? You can keep that as well. If a man wants his own book collection, then so be it. Who are you to say no to someone having something? Communists do that? Are you a Communist? You're one of the types that think when we get this New World Order in place, that things will be just fine and dandy here in the good ole' USA. Guess what, pal? Your problems will just be starting when the rule nazis step in to tell you what you can have and when you can have it. That is...if they don't kill you first. Keep your damn chips. Shove them into that liberalized, brainwashed pink eye of your's and munch on them. You need a good enema. Maybe then you'll see life for what it is and not some fantasyland you'd like for it to be.
  • billofatlier
    It's not fair! It's not fair! Hop in the Whaaaaaaambulaance! It sure as hell wasn't fair when george/dickcheney bush conconcted their war profiteering crusade into Iraq. THEY claimed that debacle would only cost me one billion dollars...they were off by only nine hundred and ninety nine billion dollars...and change.
  • thepoliticalcat
    I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but not everything. One reason we are not looking at immediate implementation of single-payer is, we're a representative democracy, and idiots like Inhofe, Graham, McCain, Ros-Lehtinen, Vitter, and their like will NEVER ever agree to it. We've finally managed to get sixty votes for whatever bare bones HCR we're getting now. Let's take this and continue to build on it.
  • cameramandavid
    I don't trust Joe LIEberman... I think he'll change his vote at the last minute...
  • thepoliticalcat
    This is not the perfect solution to the healthcare reforms we want, but I believe it's important to look at it in perspective. This nation has been fighting for some form of healthcare since the 1930s. Seventy years later, we're finally going to get SOME healthcare reform. If it's a giveaway to big insurance, then we'll have to fight that. But let's get this law passed first, so we can improve it, instead of going back to the drawing board to fight for the basics yet again.
blog comments powered by Disqus