House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote
 

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama won a historic victory in the struggle for health care reform Sunday as the House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill overhauling the American medical system.

The bill passed in a 219-212 vote after more than a year of bitter partisan debate. All 178 Republicans opposed it, along with 34 Democrats.

The measure, which cleared the Senate in December, will now go to Obama's desk to be signed into law. It constitutes the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago.

A separate compromise package of changes expanding the reach of the measure was passed by the House after its vote on the Senate bill. That reconcilation bill will advance to the Senate.

The overall $940 billion plan is projected to extend insurance coverage to roughly 32 million additional Americans. It represents a significant step towards the goal of universal coverage sought by every Democratic president since Harry Truman.

Most Americans will now be required to have health insurance or pay a fine. Larger employers will be required to provide coverage or risk financial penalties. Total individual out-of-pocket expenses will be capped, and insurers will be barred from denying coverage based on gender or pre-existing conditions.

link

This frightens me. I'm 100% behind health coverage for all, but I just don't know if this is the best way to achieve it.

I agree.

This is what I like. I trust Obama, and if this does turn out to be one hot hella mess, then that's o.k. because at this point, I don't think anything thing bad that comes from this can be any worse than what Bush's dumb ass did for 8 long years.

Bush is gone, but the lingering stench of his incompetent administration lives on...so talking about him is still fair play in my opinion (but thats all that is...an opinion).

This bill could have done a lot of good if the dems hadnt had to make so many "concession". Some of the accomplishments made could have done by the government without this bill.

It isnt "universal", but at least its a start.

Its also not "a government takeover of the US health system" or "the decision that will lead to the ultimate destruction of the United States"...so chill people...really

To me, It's the same as saying, " I'm ok with my husband cheating on me, because my ex used to beat me. Cheating isn't as bad as being abused...".

I wasn't a fan of Bush but two wrongs don't make a right and I'm not going to be giving Obama a free pass on the basis that he's not Bush like some people have been doing.

Hopefully this bill works like they say it will.

I agree with this statement. I'm glad the hoopla is over. Change freaks everyone out. They've done a really good job of making people believe that this bill is a lot of things that it's not. It's been passed, good or bad. Personally, I'm glad that nearly everyone will now (by 2014) be insured. We already pay for everyone anyway.

Some girl was talking about how both parties "worked together" to make this happen on her facebook status. I was just like, "umm...no." Regardless of what you think of the legislation you can't call it a successful collaboration. LOL

For any looking for a summary of the bill (who hasn't seen one): http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...46-503544.html

"I hate this bill because now that means I have to pay for people too lazy to work!" - Random Co Worker.

Spoken like someone who has never had to work for or own a company that does not provide healthcare.

I don't like the bill itself. It doesn't go far enough. I do think that it's good in that it creates an entitlement which will never go away. My prediction is that the insurers will do what big companies with monopolies do and continue to drive prices up and coverage down forcing Congress to act later on to restructure costs, create a public option and all of those things we all know would really make a difference here.

For now though, baby steps work for me.

Now you guys got me curious enough to be nosey....hehehe.

Kevin I don't see how this is going to work for us without a public option. How about Stopping hospitals charging $40 for an aspirin or $300 for an xray of my wrist or me having to pay $30 out of pocket with my insurance picking up $70 for a three minute consultation with a Dr. That might lower costs.

Dude, you forgot, Kevin will always have a job so healthcare should be no big whup for him.

I agree with both statements. What is going to be interesting is how this effects the next generation of physicians. My daughters have to choose by May 15 which school they will attend. At least one of their peers, who has been accepted, has chosen not to attend med school because of this legislation. Short sighted on her part? We all need a crystal ball for that one.

You have to understand why hospitals charge $40 for that aspirin and $300 for the xray. It isn't just the pill or the film you are paying for. You are paying for the charge for the actual item, the pharmacist who dispenses the pill, the pharm tech who brings the pills to the floor and the nurse who dispenses the pill to you. For an xray, you get a technical and a professional fee so you get charged for the cost of the room and xray equipment, as well as the xray technologist who performs your procedure. Your professional fee is the actual cost of the radiologist reading your film. Your consulting physician fee of $70 may only cover a physician seeing you for 3 minutes, but they have to actually write a fairly long note that covers a strict number of points about your health and physical exam. To do this, the physician will have to review your entire chart which will take 15 minutes to an hour to perform. This will also include taking a medical risk that goes against a fairly high medical malpractice premium carried by this physician. Trust me, there isn't a physician out there that makes $70 for 3 minutes work.
Also, did you go to the ER? That is the most expensive place you can go for medical care, and where the majority of the uninsured people in this country go for their medical care. The majority don't pay for this care, but this loss is turned around in higher costs to people with insurance and to tax payers.

^^^from my thoughts to your keyboard!

I think that was shortsighted and hasty on her part. She will probably regret that decision.

You know, I have heard so many older MDs say they wouldn't recommend anyone go into medicine....when I was going into medical school! It's one of those things. Older physicians see the glass as half empty. They used to be able to do anything the wanted to do without documenting anything. I think that medicine is a very rewarding field and the majority of us are and will remain well paid. In fact, if I was told today that I had to go back and start medical school again today, I'd do it all over again! No questions asked.

I think that people going into medicine need to go into it with their eyes open and need to go for the right reasons. It's no longer a field where you can print money. It should be a calling. I'm here to help people. I should be compensated for being highly educated, but their is no reason that I should have unlimited compesation and no reason I should cheat the system. When I hear people say they will leave medicine because of this new bill, I want to say, "Here's the door!"

Great post.

The good thing is that I believe the majority of people in the field are there for the reasons that you are there. The people who are running away because of this bill won't be missed. :)

Hospital for the x-Ray but the $105 consultation was at an urgent care. And I forgot to add that after making me pay a $30 copayment before seeing the Dr, then charging my insurance $70 they sent me a bill for $5.

I understand that healthcare is expensive due to equiptment and personnel costs but I fail to see how insurance reform is going to lower the total cost of healthcare. You'd think the best way to lower the total cost is to cap what the providers can charge you ( i.e. Dentist legally cannot charge more than $300 for a root canal, $70 for a cleaning).

Welp, human explanations are automatically biased because it will either be about how they feel about politics, the president, and/or healthcare. Or biased about how they feel about life, in general. :)

But, I'm more apathetic toward Obama so I'll have my own biased explanation if I find time to read a good summary of the bill somewhere. Maybe I'll use the cbsnews link.

I just read this on CNN and really like their thoughts:

Here is the link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/2...ex.html?hpt=C1

Dr. Manoj Jain, a Memphis, Tennessee-based infectious disease physician, adjunct assistant professor at Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University and medical director at Tennessee's Quality Improvement Organizations:
Last week, I saw a 55-year-old truck driver who pleaded with me to discharge him from the hospital even though his face and scalp still bore clear signs of an active staph infection. For a decade he has had recurrent staph infections exacerbated by diabetes -- yet could not afford insulin or a doctor because he lacked medical insurance. Now he begs me to let him leave, so that he will not go bankrupt from his medical bills.
I turn to his wife who says, "I am lucky. I have metastatic breast cancer, and I am covered by Medicare."
One of every 10 patients I see do not have health insurance.
I see the uninsured patients, but then make up for my losses by increasing my charges to all my patients. The cycle continues: Insurers increase premiums, choking small businesses that then drop health coverage for their employees, leading more uninsured to come to my practice.
Not providing insurance is not free; the annual health care expenditure for an uninsured adult is $1,800, according to a Kaiser Foundation study in 2004.
And there is a downside to having nearly 50 million uninsured people in America. I look them in the eye, and I know this for a fact. They will die sooner. In my opinion, lack of health insurance is a chronic illness.
The burden of this disease is most apparent among people between the ages of 54 to 65. A 2004 Health Affairs study found that lack of insurance accounts for 13,000 lives lost per year, making lack of insurance the third leading cause of death for this group, after heart disease and cancer. If we do nothing to address this problem, by 2015 lack of insurance will account for 30,000 deaths annually in just this age group.
In all fairness the present health system provides some care for the uninsured. President Bush was technically accurate when he said in July 2007, "People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."
But the distinction between an acute illness -- the kind that sends you to the emergency room -- and chronic disease is artificial. For example, each year, diabetes, a chronic disease, causes 20,000 Americans to go blind, 45,000 Americans to have kidney failure and 45,000 Americans to lose a limb. Lack of health insurance is the same -- a chronic illness causing recurrent acute illnesses.
I want to lean over and shake my uninsured patients and scream, "Be a Rosa Parks. Demand health care as a right -- just as others before you have marched for civil rights and human rights."
The uninsured have become second-class citizens. Nearly 30 million of them, who are the working poor, are unable to afford health insurance, and there is no one to unite them and voice their concerns.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not silent about people's right to health care. "Of all the forms of inequality," he said, "injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." He was speaking, I believe, of both acute care and chronic care.
Vance Harris, a primary care physician in Redding, California:
The votes have been counted but, in reality, there is no clear winner.
What is clear -- our health care system is terminally ill. Bold leadership is needed to redirect precious resources. Unfortunately bold leadership is just as scarce as precious resources.
There will be no new access to health care if we do not have physicians to provide it. We must reverse the trend that sees thousands of physicians leaving primary care. Bold leadership is needed to get the brightest minds back into one of the most challenging and demanding roles. We need motivated empowered physicians with a passion for health and the ability to care for a whole landscape of disease. We must treat decisively when possible, not just shuffle everyone down the road to a specialist.
Give us five more minutes with patients to deal with a second or even a third problem so they don't access the system twice. Give us five minutes of straight talk about the impact of lifestyle on their health. Without this, I default back to putting out fires and I write another prescription.
We need "Health" Reform not just Sickness Access Reform. We are not a healthy nation. Our indulgent lifestyle of overeating and under exercising is rapidly filling the beds needed for treating disease we can't prevent. This is exactly why we have a "Sickness Care" system. However, having the resources to treat sickness is dependent on true health care.
Our battle cry must be health, not health care reform. Seek out physicians who understand the value of health. Unfortunately, we do not have many of those doctors left. Who is going to take care of us when they are all gone?

I agree with you on this. The funniest thing is that this bill closely resembles what the GOP came up with to counter the plan that the Clintons tried to instititute in the 90s when health care reform came up last time. They thought it was a great idea back then, but it's a horrible idea now:rolleyes:

They charge you the $70 for a cleaning but then add on unnecessary xrays and whatever else so then you're walking out the door with $270 less in your pocket. I think more people would get their 6 month cleaning if dentists didn't keep adding on services to rack up the bill. The last time I got mine cleaned they took me over to do xrays and, admittingly, I thought it was an automatic thing because I don't get to the dentist enough. (I keep up with brushing, have never had a cavity, and go whenever I absolutely need to because of how expensive it is) I didn't realize that I could refuse the xray because of course my regular dentist didn't see me (who I've been seeing since I was a young child), but his younger partner did. Funny too because he never mentioned that my wisdom teeth needed to come out, yet our family friend who did an xray for free soon after said "you better get those out like next week". Makes it seem like that xray at the dentist was completely pointless.

Ok that was longer than I expected lol

But think of how much you would have been charged if you had NO coverage.

That consultation fee is for the ability to go to an afterhours style urgent care facility and see a doctor. You pay more for that convenience. The doctor doesn't actually get that money. The physician is an employee of that center and gets paid somewhere between $50 and $75 and hour to staff the center depending on the contract. A business runs the center and will shut down, leaving you with no convenient place to see a doctor for your broken wrist, if they cut back on the fee allowable.

Also he went o an urgent care center and not the ER...so he probably spent less time there too.

They (my daughters) have heard it all from family and friends. We (parents) although very biased, haha, are trying to let the girls make their own life choices. I will admit that we nudged them a little in this direction. They been around medicine all their lives. It's not a choice to make without considering all the sacrifices. I don't think any 22 year old can know/predict what their future career will hold.

I agree. It's not an easy life, and a lot of people regret the choice. I'm glad I don't!

Politicians align based on politics. Not based on what makes sense.

Of course.

As someone who HAS insurance, I am actually moving away from going to a doctor where my visits and tests will definitely be covered because I'm not actually being having my illness treated there. I am hypothyroid and my current doctor prescribes medication according to a blood test only. I had to call her office to see when I had to come back and have the test run again because I was given a year's worth of medication and no even so much as a 'we'll see you in x months to make sure we have the correct dosage.' When I made that call to see when I was coming back (actually it was returning the call because the nurse made the appointment without even seeing what time of day works for me - 4pm doesn't work very well when you work 3rd shift!), I had to ask if I were ever going to see the doctor about the symptoms that are still very present - which the medication is not resolving! The funny thing is that when I first started going to this doctor I made it clear that I wanted to be involved in my healthcare, especially with hypothyroidism. Needless to say, I am going to go to an MD recommended by my chiropractor where my insurance probably will not cover much more than the tests, if that. So despite having insurance (as will be required by law soon enough to avoid paying a fine!) that does not guarantee good healthcare - or rather healthcare that will actually take care of problems versus simply prescribing medication according to tests and ignoring symptoms, or simply treating symptoms and not dealing with what is actually causing those symptoms.

Needless to say, this healthcare 'reform' is actually not doing anything to change the quality of treatment available, only who pays what bill - so once again, the patient is actually the one being thrown under the bus again.

Have you looked into seeing any other physicians who are in network? There are other solutions than going to a physician who isn't covered by your insurance policy. One imporant part of any health care reform will include cost containment, and that WILL include limiting which physicians you can go to, what tests you can have and what medications you can take that the plan will cover. Otherwise, costs skyrocket. I think finding the right doctor sometimes takes trial and error. It took me several physicians to find the right neurologist for me. Just like with every other profession, we're human. Not all of us are good. Not all of us are going to mesh well with you. Not all of us really care that you want to have a say in your health care. Find the one that does. Don't give up, but try working within the system so you don't throw away good money.

I'm with you. And yes, I'll admit I was glued to C-SPAN much of the afternoon yesterday and all last night. (It was worth the wait to hear Stupak's speech, IMO.)

But I was reminded of GC as I watched while representative after representative claimed that this bill imposed socialism or, worse, totalitarianism. All I could think of was the Glenn Beck--Social Justice thread as I wondered if the speakers really know what socialism or totalitarianism are.

Probably the same, maybe less. I've been without insurance before man, I know how it works. I've been to clinics that had discounted pricing for non insured patients.

Also, my current Derma doesn't accept my insurance but I still see him and only pay between $40-80 per visit, depending on the treatment.

True. I can believe that. Yet it also proves their ignorance because they have never been exposed to the complete ends and outs of business and how not every business (no matter how hard you work to climb the ladder) does not equal "Great Benefits".

This will be the third doctor that I am going to for something relatively simple as hypothyroidism (compared to the psuedotumor cerebri which I had for roughly the past year - but that's gone because my brain trauma was allowed to heal on the medication I was on). Both previous doctors have shown they really don't care that I want to be involved in my healthcare - it was almost like pulling teeth even to get copies of the test results so I had them for my records! The current doctor said that she will not prescribe anything other than synthetic thyroid - which really makes me wonder what she would make me take for the rest of the symptoms I'm experiencing?!

But the question is why should I be a slave to the system? Why must I settle for only doctors that have made a deal with the health insurance companies? Why should I not be allowed to look outside the 'normal' system and work with an MD who looks at alternative means of health care (preventative rather than waiting until I'm actually sick)? I'm willing to drive 1.5 hours each way to see a doctor who, on paper, is willing to work WITH me to make me a healthier person all around - and if I have to pay for the office visits out of my own pocket (if insurance only will cover the tests) then so be it.

My view, as a patient, of the where our healthcare system is broke is that the patient is left out of the equation most of the time - its the doctors and insurance companies making the decisions. The first doctor I saw lied right to my face when I asked for specific blood tests to establish a baseline (D3, T3 and T4) - said he would order them and didn't (his nurse said because the insurance company wouldn't cover those tests - and T3 and T4 are only checked for hyperthyroid patients). I left after finding that out as I don't care for lip service, especially when my health is involved.

In the 2004 elections, George Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, vs. John Kerry gaining 48.3%. I know that it's the electoral college that chooses, but the percentage of yays to nays is pretty darn close 50.930 (or 50.9%) to 49.30 (49.3%), with the electoral college voting 286 for Bush and 251v for Kerry. In the 2000 election, 47.9% of the popular vote voted for Bush, and 48.4% for Gore (although the electoral college voted 271 to 266 in favor Bush).

Democratic supporters questioned the extremely close results in both elections (not just based on the popular vote, there were other issues as well), and Republican supporters accused the Dems of "sour grapes". Isn't this kind of the same thing?

I get it - that close margin shows that there is a strong division amongst the congress, and likely the citizens of the US. But majority rules, even in the closest of races, and in the most important (the presidential election).