Merry Christmas, and away we go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/health/policy/24health.html?hp
(
continuing from here:
U.S. health-care vote: today's the day
Thu, 2009-12-24 04:02
#1
U.S. health-care vote: today's the day
Thu, 2009-12-24 06:36
#2
continuing from here: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/pass-bill
.....................
Amazingly, Democrats seem to be holding steady at 60 votes, which is about as good as politically imaginable in the U.S. today for a basic reform -- one that many "realistic" observers said was dead back at the tea-party stage last August
....
WASHINGTON - The Senate trudged Wednesday toward passage of sweeping health legislation after disposing of Republican claims that it would be unconstitutional to require Americans to have health insurance, as the bill does.
The Senate was poised to take a final vote on the legislation, President Obama's top priority, on Thursday morning.
[...] In an interview with PBS, President Obama said Wednesday that he was pleased with the Senate bill, as with a companion bill passed by the House last month.
"I'm getting 95 percent of what I want," Mr. Obama said.
He vowed to sign the final legislation even if it did not include a government-run insurance plan. The House bill, but not the Senate measure, includes such a public option.
"I've been in favor of the public option," Mr. Obama said. "I think the more choice, the more competition we have, the better." But, he said, the legislation includes many consumer protections and "extraordinary reforms," so it would make no sense to reject it just because it had no public insurance plan.
Mr. Obama said he would be deeply involved in negotiations to work out differences between the Senate and the House. And he dismissed the idea that he had already compromised too much.
"This notion that somehow the health care bill that is emerging should be grudgingly accepted by Democrats as half a loaf is simply incorrect," Mr. Obama said. "This is nine-tenths of a loaf. And for a family out there that right now doesn't have health insurance, it is a great deal. It's a full loaf for a lot of families who have nothing to fall back on if they get into a medical emergency."
....................
Analysis, I agree:
What has emerged from that machinery is not merely "better than nothing" or "a good start." It is the most significant American legislative triumph in at least four decades. :
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/just-noise
Thu, 2009-12-24 07:41
#3
it's a wrap in the Senate:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/24/health.care/index.html
The victory for Obama comes after nearly a year of sharply polarized deliberations on Capitol Hill. Any measure passed by the Senate, however, will still have to be merged with a $1 trillion plan approved by the House of Representatives in November.
Increasingly confident Democrats hope to have a bill ready for Obama's signature before his State of the Union address early next year.
"Health care reform is not a matter of if," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. "Health care reform now is a matter of when."
If a combined House-Senate health care bill clears Congress and is signed by Obama, it would be the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid over four decades ago.
EXCELLENT NEWS! 
Merry Christmas !!
Thu, 2009-12-24 11:02
#4
Sandy47
It isn't Health Care Reform... it's Health Insurance Profitability Reform.
Thu, 2009-12-24 11:22
#5
Considering that the rethuglicans were going to oppose the bill no matter what, why water it down? Oh yeah, that's because a bunch of democrats act, think and are as beholden to big pharma and insurance as the rethugs. I wonder if Obama will reform the bankruptcy laws because this health care bill looks like it will bankrupt a lot of families. Or am I speaking out of my a$$?
Thu, 2009-12-24 11:28
#6
Guaranteed Income Supplement for insurance companies - by robbing the public treasury and those with few means, and forcing every to buy new private coverage and keep the private coverage they have.
Multiple-tier health care for rich vs. poor.
No offence to misogynist bigots.
No coverage for sick people till 2014.
No interviews in the media with newly-covered poor folks saying, "Thanks, O Lord Obama!" Wonder why not?
And the system has been reformed - so don't bother us again.
Thu, 2009-12-24 11:46
#7
I think a few months from now, when the dust has settled a bit, we here should take a close look at the politics and lobbying involved with this battle in the States.
There are, undoubtedly, lessons for us to learn.
Sat, 2009-12-26 08:54
#8
after Obama's Big Compromise/Triumph on health insurance,
a good piece on his Times on his political method:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/opinion/26douthat.html?_r=1&hp
seconded across the Atlantic in Liberation:
http://www.liberation.fr/monde/0101610619-methode
Op-Ed Columnist
The Obama Way
.....
Both right and left have had trouble processing Obama's institutionalism. Conservatives have exaggerated his liberal instincts into radicalism, ignoring the fact that a president who takes advice from Lawrence Summers and Robert Gates probably isn't a closet Marxist-Leninist. The left has been frustrated, again and again, by the gulf between Obama's professed principles and the compromises that he's willing to accept, and some liberals have become convinced that he isn't one of them at all.
They're wrong. Absent political constraints, Obama would probably side with the liberal line on almost every issue. It's just that he's more acutely conscious of the limits of his powers and less willing to start fights that he might lose than many supporters would prefer. In this regard, he most resembles Ronald Reagan and Edward Kennedy. Both were highly ideological politicians who trained themselves to work within the system. Both preferred cutting deals to walking away from the negotiating table.
The upside of this approach is obvious: It gets things done. Between the stimulus package, the pending health care bill and a new raft of financial regulations, Obama will soon be able to claim more major legislative accomplishments than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson.
Wed, 2009-12-30 01:22
#9
As a result, Christmas has been cancelled:
Wed, 2009-12-30 01:38
#10
Pogo
I think a few months from now, when the dust has settled a bit, we here should take a close look at the politics and lobbying involved with this battle in the States.
There are, undoubtedly, lessons for us to learn.
Yes, I am sure a lot of back seat drivers will find ways that a perfect package could have been politically achieveable if only the right buttons had been pushed to properly mobilize public opinion.
Wed, 2009-12-30 04:55
#11
I've been following the analyses that some Merkin friends are doing of their new bill, and while the news is pretty bad, one thing that strikes me is how much they understand in detail about their own "system," such as it is. They are really used to drawing up detailed budgets -- perforce, I guess, which sort of impresses me although it also makes me feel panic sometimes.
Anyway, I'm ashamed to admit that I don't know the answers to some pretty basic questions about our system -- like, how much am I actually paying in OHIP fees, eg? I think that our fees are figured out on the provincial tax form, yes? Whereas in some provinces (BC?) people pay directly, yes? My fees don't show on the statements I get from income source (they're hidden in the tax deduction), but I have this vague thought that they're around $50/month for OHIP -- yes?
The more important (if stupid) questions: Are those fees roughly the same across the country, even if collected differently province by province? And are those fees progressive, or uniform/flat/however you put that, or something in between?
And why don't I know these things? Please try not to get too personal in answering that last one.
ETA: I know it's not just me, though. I have seen a number of Canadians pop up in discussions on Merkin blogs saying some variation of "Healthcare is free for us," which kind of makes me cringe.
Wed, 2009-12-30 06:04
#12
Skdadl, you're not alone (trust me) in not having a full grasp of our system(s).
The only two provinces that have a "user premium" system (although Ontario doesn't call them premiums) are Ontario and B.C. Alberta abolished theirs in 2009. Some provinces (like Québec and Manitoba - maybe others?) abolished theirs in the 1970s.
Wed, 2009-12-30 06:06
#13
Do you mean that peeps everywhere else really are paying, like, NOTHING?!?
Wed, 2009-12-30 06:08
#14
That's correct - for the basic services that are covered by medicare (roughly the same everywhere).
Wed, 2009-12-30 06:12
#15
Oh, well, then. Here I've been feeling so smug/pitying/etc reading teh Merkins ... But now I'm annoyed.
(Actually, since I'm a li'l ole widow lady, I think I'm paying nothing too -- but it's the principle of the thing, y'know?)
Wed, 2009-12-30 06:24
#16
I think a few months from now, when the dust has settled a bit, we here should take a close look at the politics and lobbying involved with this battle in the States.
There are, undoubtedly, lessons for us to learn.
Yes, I am sure a lot of back seat drivers will find ways that a perfect package could have been politically achieveable if only the right buttons had been pushed to properly mobilize public opinion.
Well, I'm sure there will be some of that, but more importantly for us is looking at how the lobby agaisnt any reform worked it's tactics.
I'm sure the same tactics are or will be put to work on this side of the border on any issue that challenges the corporate kleptocracy.