House Healthcare Vote (Passed 219-212)

[Justinian]

I don't see a thread about this yet...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...ex.html?hpt=T1

According to some reports the Democrats already have enough votes because Stupak was guaranteed an executive order against abortion being paid for by the taxpayer. Of course Republicans are in a frenzy to oppose healthcare reform and continue to be the "party of no" (really, what's changed?) so long as Democrats are in power.

What do you think? Will the bill pass? Do you want it to?

[MathiasOfAthens]

What you mean by an executive order against abortion. Abortion coverage is already excluded from the bill so I dont know what you mean.

And unless this procedure is life threatening to the mother I dont really see the need for tax payer coverage for it.

[s.rwitt]

Will the bill pass? Do you want it to?

Yes. No.

[JP226]

I don't think it'll pass

[Phier]

Allow the electoral slaughter to begin.

[bushbush]

sure, let it pass. It will save a lot of money in the long run (according to congressional budget office) than the current system, plus it gives more coverage. So why not?

[Phier]

sure, let it pass. It will save a lot of money in the long run (according to congressional budget office) than the current system, plus it gives more coverage. So why not?

No, it won't, you haven't really looked at it.

[JP226]

CBO isn't sure one way or the other really. It could save money, but that's about as likely as it costing more. CBO analysis, or bill analysis in general tends to be a very static event where numbers are based on a realtively unchanging world.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Neither have you though. Instead we trust the analysis by the CBO.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I don't think it'll pass

Why?

[Phier]

CBO isn't sure one way or the other really. It could save money, but that's about as likely as it costing more.

If it could save money it wouldn't require a massive tax increase.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Really theres a massive tax increase, omg were all going to die.

[bushbush]

No, it won't, you haven't really looked at it.

ya Mr.Economist lol. I think i trust a non-partisan analysis body more than you lmao.

[Phier]

Really theres a massive tax increase, omg were all going to die.

Explain why they would need to raise taxes if its going to save money?

My favorite CBO analysis used 10 years of taxes vrs 6 years of funding. That was special massaging.

[JP226]

Why?

Because the dems only have 216 votes, the odds of a vote going for a no when it should be a yes on a bill this controversial is much more likely than a vote that was already a no and switching to a yes. I can't see 216 votes staying in lock step when their very careers depend on them voting no. From a political POV who wants to be the deciding vote on something that is unpopular?

If it could save money it wouldn't require a massive tax increase.

The savings is assuming Government premiums can drop on average 500 bucks and stay down that much over the course of 10 years as they take on an additional 30 million people. How that can happen I don't know. That's why when the CBO goes in, they make brash assumptions that despite behavior changes, that 500 dollar target is going to be maintained.

[Cyreidel]

If it could save money it wouldn't require a massive tax increase.

A nation is judged by how it's worst off are cared of, not the 1% who earn 900k dollars a day and only play 13% in taxes.

[Phier]

FLASH: Senate Republicans found a provision in the new House health care bill that likely makes it ineligible for expedited 'reconciliation' procedures in the Senate. Dems refused to meet with GOP and Parliamentarian.... Developing....

[MathiasOfAthens]

Only the wealthiest will be affected by the tax increase. Sorta like Bushes tax cuts: Only the rich were affected.


Phier they were not going to use the reconcilation manuever, they decided otherwise awhile ago? What do you mean by this?

[JP226]

BUt if the government has more money thanks to the bill, why the need to raise more money? Hell, we could get another tax cut.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Because the dems only have 216 votes, the odds of a vote going for a no when it should be a yes on a bill this controversial is much more likely than a vote that was already a no and switching to a yes. I can't see 216 votes staying in lock step when their very careers depend on them voting no. From a political POV who wants to be the deciding vote on something that is unpopular?

It's prolonging the matter that will cost political careers. If democrats get this off the agenda, they're smiling. Not as if the Republicans have anything else to go on right now.