The vote was a razor-thin 220-215 (218 was the minimum needed); 39 very bright Democrats voted no, while one lone Republican voted Yea (Joseph Cao-LA, who has virtually no chance of holding onto his seat next fall anyway in his strongly Democrat district). Of course, his vote will mean the Left and the media-but I repeat myself-will herald it as some incredible bipartisan achievement. This really is anything but. The large Democrat majority barely mustered enough votes for passage, and their confidence in this stinker is so high that they hold the vote late on a Saturday night. Not exactly the height of the news cycle, you know? The Senate will be much tougher, but as a cynic I expect this boondoggle to be passed and signed by the giver of light and rainbows sometime in the next couple of months.
I’m sure many on the Left joined the Democrat lawmakers in cheering last night, but for those of us who are skeptical of $2.6 trillion “reform” establishing new taxes and mandates, all the while ensuring higher premiums and probably lower quality of care without a reduction in healthcare costs, consider the poor chocolate bunny in the montage here as representative of all that you appreciated about our current system, and what the Democrats will do to it:
Chocolate Bunny Kill
Tiffany | MySpace Video
UPDATE: Lindsey Grahamnesty on PelsoiCare’s chances in the Senate:
“The House bill is a non-starter in the Senate,” he added. “I just think the construct out of the House and what exists in the Senate is not going to pass, and I hope and pray it doesn’t because it would be a disaster for the economy and health care,” Graham concluded.
Graham believed a public option would “destroy” private health care, saying that insurance companies could not compete against the lower premiums of a government-backed plan. “It will be a death blow to private choice,” he said.
Of course, on the same program Democrat Jack Reed (RI) disagreed, suggesting that since an overwhelming “sixty percent” want a public option then they need to listen to that. Um, what about all the polls showing a lack of support for ObamaCare overall? And regarding that support for the government option? Questionable, at best…just like the oft-repeated World Health Organization’s rankings placing the US health care system only 37th.
#1 by jeff on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
Tom Perriello is toast the town hall meetings were no more that a hoax. Tom was going to vote the way Pelosi wanted him to all along. Tom Perriello here is a fair warning get ready to look for a new job.
#2 by Anon on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
Maybe. He barely won last year in a strong cycle for Dems, so even with a NO vote he was likely to face a tough re-election. And, since the effects of this garbage won’t be felt for a few years, especially since it won’t be implemented until after Our Savior runs for re-election in ‘12 (surely just a coincidence, haha), I think its far more likely Dem fortunes will rest on where unemployment is. If it is still around 10% or so for the midterms-and more and more economists think it will be-Dems are going to be in a lot of trouble.
Besides that, the politics of it are far less important than the far-reaching consequences of such a terrible bill.
#3 by Emmy on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
I’m glad it passed…big shock right?
I’m not sure this is the right answer to the problems we have now, but it’s a start. I do believe that affordable, quality healthcare is a right. It falls into that whole “life” and “pursuit of happiness” thing.
But I’ve noticed that nothing really happens in this country until people get either really energized or really ticked off. Right now Dems are pretty energized and Pubs are pretty ticked off. So perhaps this will lead to some real reform over the next few years.
I don’t think this will be the end of the world by any means, but I also don’t think it will solve the problem. But I hope it gets things moving in the right direction because things are pretty bad and no one was making any moves.
#4 by Anon on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
With all due respect, I vehemently disagree with the notion that something is better than nothing. If this is such an emergency, why not implement it immediately rather than wait a few years? From what I understand it wouldn’t start paying benefits until 2013, or 2016 with the House bill. If it is true that it won’t explode the deficit, why does the Senate plan use 10 years of new taxes to finance only 7 years of the program (and just 6 in the House bill)? If they’re so concerned about affordability, why didn’t they include caps on malpractice awards and the ability to sell across state lines?
Sorry, but I don’t think this is about providing affordable, quality health care. This is about taking over 1/6th of the economy and ensuring that more and more of the middle class are dependent on the government. The more that are, the more votes Democrats can depend on in the future.
I understand that you’re a lot more trusting of their motives than I, but they’ve provided plenty of reasons for skepticism.
#5 by jeff on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
Has anyone ever seen where the government saved money on anything ?
#6 by Emmy on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
I’m skeptical, but I understand why they are in a hurry.
Who knows, it may not pass the Senate and then it won’t matter.
I know that something isn’t always better than nothing, but how long would this have continued before something was done? How bad does it have to get before someone steps in?
#7 by jeff on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
Why not take your time and get it right instead of just passing something that won’t be good in the long run.
#8 by Anon on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
Oh, it’ll pass the Senate. No way is the WH going to get this far only to suffer a huge defeat there. May not be the House bill per se, but something will be signed by Obama.
I disagree somewhat on the idea this is an emergency. There are problems to be sure, and lots of horror stories, but most like their coverage and the care they receive. Last Tuesday’s exit polling showed that health care wasn’t the primary concern of voters, and I’m fairly certain that is the case on a national level too. Maybe I’m just being a cynic, but they’re hurrying not out of overt concern for their fellow man but to institute the biggest expansion of the fed since the New Deal while they can. Its political. The more the Dems can do that, the more the GOP has to play on their field. And there is no going back…voters get used to the gov’t providing health care, they’ll look for it to provide other stuff too, and you’ll have both parties fight each other over who will give ‘em the most, fiscal consequences and otherwise be damned.
#9 by Emmy on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
Well I think we just have to agree to disagree on this one and hope that it doesn’t turn out badly.
I’m sure you have a statistic somewhere that says people are happy with what they have, but it’s not been my experience that people are happy. Maybe it’s just a local thing, but I know lots of unhappy people and since I know a lot more Republicans than Democrats it’s not a party thing. Now, most of those same people don’t want this…but they don’t think we have a good system.
I guess we’ll see what happens.
#10 by Anon on November 9th, 2009
| Quote
Yeah, I’ve got polls and stuff.
And I think they call knowing a lot more Republicans than Democrats keeping good company