Yea, the bill did pass the House! Time to give Faux a ratings boost and watch them squirm!!! LOL!!!

Is it really a surprise to anyone that the bill has passed the house. One repub even voted for it. Quite a few dems didn't though.

Did it pass with a public option?

Hell YES! I'm almost tempted to seek out the Glenn Beck hour just to watch the waterworks--and chalk board drawings!





Did it pass with a public option?


Yes!!!!

I was wondering what that distant cry I was hearing was... Now I know it was Beck and the FAKE News viewers wailing and rending thier garments over America's "descent into communism"...

Also remember that Joe is one of the people they were counting on to get their 60.

I am not anti-abortion but I am definetly anti-paying for someone else's abortion unless it's a matter of life and death.

At least you were honest in your post when you said the will of the Senate,,,not the will of the people....

I've always thought the best way to elect a president and vice-president is simply put everyone up for president and then the top winner is President and the runner-up is the VP.

On topic, as the bill sits from the house, Joe won't be voting for it.

It was very close in the House. If some of the major obstacles the house used to get it to pass do not pass mustard with the Senate then it will be an interesting merry-go-round with the two chambers.

From September 17, 2009 - Dodd Inching Back Up In Connecticut, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Obama Slide Continues
Voters support Obama's health care plan 47 - 42 percent and split 47 - 45 percent in their approval of the way he is handling health care.
Connecticut voters support 64 - 30 percent giving people the option to buy health insurance from a government plan. But by a 68 - 26 percent margin they don't believe Obama's promise that the health care plan will not add to the deficit. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1374

November 12, 2009
Oily health bill fails to build trust
NOLAN FINLEY
Trust is about the only thing left out of the bloated health care bill narrowly passed by the House.
Americans remain wary of the plan, according to polling, because they don't trust it will do the things President Barack Obama claims it will do, and won't do the things he promises it won't.
Despite the president's "Don't worry, trust me" assurances that the reforms will deliver universal coverage with superior care and at a lower cost without disrupting current coverage, more than half of Americans aren't buying -- and it's not because they're frightened by Republican hainty tales. They know what snake oil smells like.
They don't trust the cost estimates, and for good reason. Taxpayers are being asked to swallow the incredible claim that the cost of the bill will be offset by savings gained from efficiencies and taxes on the wealthy. But as the Wall Street Journal notes, even confiscating 100 percent of the income of the truly rich won't raise enough revenue to pay for this bill. And the New York Times reports most analysts say the savings estimates are unachievable.
Big shock. Americans know this drill. In 1965, Medicare Part A was estimated to cost the nation $9 billion by 1990. Actual cost: $67 billion, according to the Cato Institute.
Similarly, in 1988, when a home health care benefit was added to Medicare, the cost was pegged at $4 billion. Actual: $10 billion. And the Medicare Part D drug benefit doubled in cost in the time it took to move from Congress to the president's desk.
Americans are also too familiar with how the federal bureaucracy works to trust that government management of care won't mean more hassles and hardship. Most Americans have had a least some contact with bureaucrats, and it's rarely pleasant. The House bill will increase the frequency and intensity of those contacts.
It sets up panels to dictate what procedures will be covered, panels to choose who can deliver the care, and panels to decide whether the treatment is necessary.
Americans are asked to trust the bureaucracy to be competent and compassionate at a time when competence and compassion can mean the difference between life and death.
Anyway they turn this bill, it still comes up looking like a first step to a federal takeover of health care.
That speaks to the widest gap in trust -- the bill's motives. The expressed goal is to make affordable insurance available to all. But much of what's in the bill reaches well beyond that mission, raising suspicions that the real objectives are to increase the dominance of government over the individual and use health care as a means of achieving a broader liberal agenda.
For example, the bill is laden with affirmative action requirements in health care education and hiring. A Senate version requires the government to "develop standards for the measurement of gender" because simple male and female checkboxes are no longer relevant.
It also requires restaurant chains to disclose caloric content and other nutritional information on menus. And it sets up home visits by federal health monitors to assess the household behaviors of certain families with young children.
Americans don't trust this bill because its sponsors have not been honest about its cost, impact and intent. To stop it, they'll have to do more than gripe to pollsters. They must start hollering at politicians again.
Because another thing they can't trust is that their members of Congress will vote on their behalf, rather than how they're told to by their partisan bosses. http://www.detnews.com/article/20091112/OPINION03/911120336/1008/Oily-health-bill-fails-to-build-trust

Hopefully Joe and the moderate democrats that have been voicing their concerns stick to their guns. It looks like the governments previous attempts at estimates of medical bills have been way off. The estimates were as much as 250% off to 700% off the estimates.

With the Congressional bill estimated at 1.2 trillion, that means if their record holds we could be actually facing a 3 trillion to a 8.4 trillion health care mess in the next several years.

More in U.S. Say Health Coverage Is Not Gov’t. Responsibility
Marks significant shift from the attitudes of the past decadeby Frank NewportPRINCETON, NJ -- More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/Say-Health-Coverage-Not-Gov-Responsibility.aspx