by Noam N. Levey and James Oliphant
With a historic floor vote looming on their healthcare bill today, House Democratic leaders secured an 11th-hour compromise late Friday night to settle a long-simmering debate over how to restrict federal funding for abortion.
The deal appeared to clear the way for a vote on the sweeping healthcare legislation this evening.
And senior Democrats maintained that they would have the 218 votes needed for passage when the House votes.
"You don't go to the floor unless you're there -- and we're there," said Rep. John B. Larson of Connecticut, the No. 4 Democrat in the House.
President Obama, who has made healthcare legislation the centerpiece of his domestic agenda, planned to go to the Capitol this morning to rally House Democrats.
The abortion compromise will allow socially conservative Democrats to offer a strong antiabortion amendment today when the bill comes to the floor. The amendment, which is expected to pass with the support of Republicans, would prohibit the new government insurance plan -- or so-called "public option" -- from covering elective abortions.
The amendment would extend a similar prohibition on private insurers that offer plans in new government-regulated insurance exchanges that are the foundation of the Democratic plan to expand coverage.
The Democratic healthcare bill envisions that millions of people who do not get coverage through work would shop for insurance in these new exchanges.
Under the compromise, federal funds would still be allowed to cover abortions in cases of rape or incest and in cases in which a woman's life is in danger.
Lawmakers who support abortion rights have bitterly opposed this proposal, and emerged visibly disappointed Friday night from a marathon meeting in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).
They have been pushing an alternative that would have allowed commercial insurers to offer coverage of elective abortions.
Under their proposal, many insurance companies will probably offer plans to millions of low- and middle-income women who will get federal subsidies to help them buy coverage.
If they cover elective abortions, these insurers would have to maintain separate accounts for these women, so that only private money is used to pay for abortion services.
The new government insurance plan would have to make similar arrangements.
But this arrangement never satisfied conservative Democrats, who threatened to derail the healthcare legislation unless their demands were met for stricter prohibitions on the use of federal funding for abortions.
And in the end, Pelosi had to convince the liberal wing of her party to hold their noses and back a bill that would restrict access to abortions more than many wanted.
With 258 seats -- counting newly elected New York Rep. Bill Owens, who was sworn in Friday -- Democrats can afford to lose 40 members and still pass the bill.
But as Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and other senior Democrats met into the night with undecided members, their safety margin appeared to be narrowing. A succession of Democrats went public with their plans to oppose the bill, including first-term Reps. John Adler of New Jersey, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Walt Minnick of Idaho and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland.
Many other centrist Democrats said they still hadn't made up their minds Friday, including Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.). "I've been really trying to get to yes," he said.
No Republicans are expected to vote for the more than $1-trillion measure, which would expand health coverage to 96% of Americans over the next decade.
"I have never seen greater evidence that Washington, D.C., is out of touch with the American people than the fact that Democrats are going to continue in their headlong rush to pass a government takeover of healthcare in the wake of rising unemployment," said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, the No. 3 Republican in the House, citing new figures that national unemployment climbed to 10.2% in October.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer expressed concern Friday that GOP lawmakers might attempt to disrupt the voting by making repeated motions to adjourn, as they have in the past.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Friday that party leaders had not decided what they would do during the vote.
One veteran lawmaker expected that when the voting starts, more lawmakers will come over. "I don't believe all those people who say no," said 19-term Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont). "When they look up at the board, do they really want to vote against providing coverage to millions of people?"
But Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said party leaders are reluctant to go to a floor vote without a sure result. "You don't want to roll the dice on this," he said.
Pelosi earlier cleared one roadblock by persuading Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) to withdraw his demand for a vote on an amendment that would create a single-payer system in which the government would cover all Americans, a long-held goal of the left.
"I'm disappointed," Weiner said. "But the most important thing that we have to do here is move the ball forward and get a bill passed." Weiner made the concession after sitting with Pelosi and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) late Thursday and reviewing a list of centrist Democrats uncomfortable about the vote.









Comments
Once again, Speaker Pelosi has proven her leadership qualities. She appears to have avoided a serious threat to the much needed Healthcare Reform, moving through our House of Representatives. Here is hoping they do the right thing, for all of America and pass this Healthcare Reform !! If that does happen today, than there is a real possibility that our Senate may begin to seriously consider passing their version, in the coming weeks. We need that " cost-contol option " and I hope the Senate becomes a strong advocate for such a measure. Also, I hope the Republican-Libertarians, in our Senate, perform their prescribed, constitutional duties and not abandon their responsibilities, as they did, at the Energy Committee's hearings ! Their constituents voted for them to go to Washington and consider America's needs, not their narrow-minded agenda !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | November 7, 2009 10:19 AM
Obama Care and Climate Change legislation combined will prove to be the worst attacks on you and your children's freedom and standard of living since Pearl Harbor..
Posted by: steelpedler | November 7, 2009 10:28 AM
Don, you should write for Leno, that post is hilarious! Pelosi...leadership qualities...Ha Ha Ha!!!
Posted by: Still Laughing | November 7, 2009 10:35 AM
Once again, Speaker Pelosi shows that she has little regard for the American taxpayer.
This bill will lead to increased taxes, a sky-rocketing deficit, increased national debt and more people looking for work.
The days of tax and spend legislation has returned to Washington and will lead to inflation that we have not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter!
Posted by: Pat H | November 7, 2009 10:38 AM
Despite smear campaigns by insurers, maybe we should have gone for total national health care. That's what they have in the UK, Germany, Japan, and France, where they cover everybody, suffer no medical bankruptcies, yet provide very good medical care and live longer and healthier than in the USA. The cost? They each spend far LESS, about 10-11% of their GDP on health care vs. 16% in USA.
We should learn from them since they do it much better and cheaper. And if you disdain socialism, do you want to give up social security? FDA? Interstate highways? The military? Police and Fire Depts?
Posted by: KAG | November 7, 2009 10:40 AM
Don, read and try to understand the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document is the Congress given the power they are in the midst of grabbing. Most likely, you're hoping for something without cost. America today is insolvent and yet left wing nuts like you are willing to sacrifice all of our liberty just for free health care. remember, Donny-boy, you get what you pay for.
Posted by: SonofLiberty | November 7, 2009 10:47 AM
This House bill is a disaster on too many fronts to mention here. Per a previous poster, this bill is not a “cost-control option”. It’s more of a “cost -out of control- option” with increased costs in the form of significant taxpayer subsidies and reduced health care services. Fortunately, it will be DOA in the Senate. Unfortunately, the health care reform debate will likely drag deep into next year as there is not a serious bipartisan attempt to pass a reasonable bill. The Senate and House bills will be too far apart to successfully reconcile. If there isn’t a signed bill by March 30th, then there will be no bill before the 2010 election.
Posted by: John | November 7, 2009 11:20 AM
The above article contains the usual DNC Swamp "coverage" of an issue: 5 Democrats quoted, versus only 1 Republican.
Posted by: Bruce | November 7, 2009 11:30 AM
KAG wrote: And if you disdain socialism, do you want to give up social security? FDA? Interstate highways? The military? Police and Fire Depts?
Social Security: Yep, give it up.
FDA: Toss it, let private company do it.
Interstates: Sell them to reduce deficit.
Military: Required by US Constitution. So no.
Police/Fire: Privatize
Done...don't thank me, my pleasure.
Posted by: John Birch | November 7, 2009 11:32 AM
Congress, if you want to allow more americans to health care, get them JOBS!. The majority of Americans do not want this, why aren't you listening???
Posted by: Dusty | November 7, 2009 12:15 PM
The above article contains the usual DNC Swamp "coverage" of an issue: 5 Democrats quoted, versus only 1 Republican.
Posted by: Bruce | November 7, 2009 11:30 AM
------------------------------------------------------
That's because republicans don't matter anymore.
Posted by: I heart Schadenfreude | November 7, 2009 12:20 PM
John Birch, your posting is so moronic I don't even know where to start with it. Rest assured though, if you think the federal government is screwing you now, just think what private corporations would be doing to you if they took over all the items you listed. Why you right wingers continue to think that the "free market" will save you is beyond me. The biggest problem with the United States today is that too many politicians are in bed with these corporations. If you really want change in America, get the corporations out of the politicians pockets.
Posted by: Brian | November 7, 2009 12:26 PM
Steelpedler says"Obama Care and Climate Change legislation combined will prove to be the worst attacks on you and your children's freedom and standard of living since Pearl Harbor.."
Where's your substance/backup? Typical slogan oriented statement by a person with no intellectual curiosity.
Posted by: kent | November 7, 2009 1:10 PM
Elites overlook power of populists
*
Some great lines in this article:
*
"From experience and observation, it is the commentariat, it is the intelligentsia, and it is the “beautiful people” of Washington, Los Angeles and New York who are the unsophisticated, who are the anti-intellectuals, who are the ill-mannered and who are the rude. Money, celebrity and access are no substitute for common sense, timeless values and decency. Only among this group came the cocktail approbation when President Obama claimed that he inherited a huge deficit and the only way to shrink it was to grow it. The beautiful people all cooed while the rest of the country scratched its head and said, “That doesn’t make any sense.” Of course, the “common-sense people” have been proven right. "
*
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29234.html
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | November 7, 2009 1:11 PM
It makes me terribly sad to read these bitter comments about health care reform,something we so desperately need in this country. I know many people who are suffering because they cannot afford simple medications.
I don't care if you are left or right--people are dying and suffering in this country because they are being neglected by their own government. Something needs to change!
Posted by: Amara | November 7, 2009 1:19 PM
But we don't know what is in the bill?
The liberals promised that the people would be able to read the bill and comment.
All of this is being done in the dark - away from the People.
Posted by: Alz | November 7, 2009 1:24 PM
The Democrats will probably pass their health care bill in the House. One of the reasons Obama is pushing for health care passage now has to do with 2010 elections. As soon as the American public finds out what is in this insane bill, such as cutting Medicare, and raising taxes the public will be more then likely to vote Obama's House and Senate maojority out of office. Anyway with the ecomomy going from bad to worse Obama needs something he call his own. The trouble is the majority of Americans don't want his garbage.
Posted by: clarence | November 7, 2009 1:38 PM
I don't think there was ever much of a question that a House bill would pass. The real battle lines are in the Senate, and they mainly concern the so-called public option. Right now, with at least Lieberman defecting, Senate Dems do not have the votes to break a filibuster.
Posted by: Herbie H. | November 7, 2009 4:00 PM
But we don't know what is in the bill?
The liberals promised that the people would be able to read the bill and comment.
All of this is being done in the dark - away from the People.
Posted by: Alz | November 7, 2009 1:24 PM
-------------------------------------------------
Here's a link to the bill online (that's the interwebs for you luddites).
http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf
Read it and tell us what it says.
Posted by: I heart Schadenfreude | November 7, 2009 4:37 PM
Compromise! What compromise?
Its not a compromise when its just
Pelosi and her lap dogs have the
only say. It certainly isn't what the
vast majority of America wants.
Posted by: Paul | November 7, 2009 4:40 PM
President Obama warned House Democrats on Saturday that Republicans will go after them even if they break ranks and vote against the Democratic health-care overhaul
- Teddy Davis, ABC News
That is EXACTLY the right thing for the president to do and what I was hoping he would do.
Sen. Max Cleland, a DECORATED and SEVERLY INJURED Viet Nam VETERAN (NOT a chicken-hawk like Bush, Cheney, etc.) voted FOR the Iraq war of choice.
The next election, the Republicans charged that he was NOT FIT to defend the United States of America.
"Not fit."
Can you imagine the nerve it took for chickenhawks to make that claim to a U.S. war veteran?
The truth is that once bullies see "fear" or "confusion," they attack.
Democrats who think the Republicans will go lightly on them because they vote against health care reform need to read Cleland's new book before they vote.
As for me, I'll be marking the names of the defectors. And I'll be laughing when the Republicans attack them and they lose their next elections.
Posted by: Tell the Truth | November 7, 2009 4:40 PM
On a closely-related topic:
Senator Burris’ Conflict with the Constitution
Democratic Party hack Roland Burris, (D-Il) who got his job as a United States senator as a result of disgraced governor Blago’s greed and because of the color of his skin, made a profound observation on Obamacare’s mandated health insurance.
Sen. Burris, a constitutional ignoramus, “pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government ‘to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.’ “
Advised in an October 21st interview with CNS that the word “health” appears nowhere in the Constitution, Bumbling Burris, an over-achiever if there ever was one, blustered, “That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here.”
Excuse me?
Burris then rambled on about private options, yada, yada, yada, and resorted to the Democrat default position by dredging up a number constantly in flux: ”We’ve got the 48 million people who are without it. [health insurance]”
Disregarding the fact that his number is baloney . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1309)
Posted by: Berlet98 | November 7, 2009 4:41 PM
Has the gov't ever run a social services porgram that has met the customers' needs AND cost less than its original budget?
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have gone way over their original budgets. How many trillions can we pour down this sink hole?
Posted by: Terry | November 7, 2009 4:46 PM
A few other things to consider from the bill:
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583
Posted by: Terry | November 7, 2009 4:52 PM
What the hey! It is about time! One hundred years from when Teddy Roosevelt first tried to institute national health care, a man with vision! The last republican to have any! When history is written this will most certainly be a day of historic significance! I love it when the tea party, rightwingnuts, and ranting conservative radio talk hosts become upset with Pelosi! It shows that she is doing the right thing for this nation. They had the same rantings with TEDDY ROOSEVELT, FDR, TRUMAN, JOHNSON AND CLINTON! Let them rant, while Pelosi and company get the peoples work done, finally, for the people! Remember the republicans never do anything for this nation, they only do things to this nation! whiteagle38
Posted by: Raymond L. Juneau | November 7, 2009 5:23 PM
Stupid liberals, the military is not a socialistic idea. It is there for national defense: TO KEEP YOU FROM BEING KILLED BY TERRORISTS AND ANY OTHER FOREIGN ARMY.
Other necessary government services are not socialist ideas either. If you think that they are you are dumber than a rock. Police, and fire protection predate socialism.
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Posted by: Gary | November 7, 2009 8:31 PM
This what you will be paying for: Health coverage for illegal aliens. For you liberal kool aid drinkers, the Hispanic Caucus will not vote for a healthcare bill unless illegals are covered. AND, it won't matter if the bill that passes SAYS that they won't be covered. IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T ENFORCE THE IMMIGRATION LAWS. And, they simply won't enforce the laws against covering illegals. So, they WILL be covered. And Joe Wilson was right. But, you ignorant liberals don't know any of this because you only watch the STATE APPROVED "real news channels".
Roll Call is reporting (sub. req.) this morning that Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) is unhappy with potential language about illegal immigrants not being covered under the health care plan.
The newspaper reports Velázquez warned President Obama yesterday that 20 members of her caucus will vote against the final bill if that language is included.
In their current forms, the Senate version of the bill blocks illegals from getting coverage, the House bill does not.
"He listened to us and he knows where we stand," Velazquez said, according to Roll Call. "We made it very clear that we support the language that is in the House. We expect that the current language will not change."
Posted by: Gary | November 7, 2009 11:44 PM
Maybe someone in the Swamp can explain this to me, because I am a little confused. The justification I have heard for the so-called public option is that it is necessary to keep insurers honest. I interpret this to mean that since the public option does not have the profit motive, they will be able to pass along cheaper premium rates, and force private companies to compete with those cheaper premiums. However, the CBO found that the premiums for a public option would be higher on average than their private counterparts. See page 6 of the report, which states in relevant part as follows:
"That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges."
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf
--------------
If the public option charges higher premiums, then what is the point? How does charging more for premiums than private insurers keep them honest? How does that drive down the cost of anything?
Posted by: Herbie H. | November 8, 2009 3:27 AM
Great passage for Obama's Obamaism,
Obama's Dictatorship , probably down the road..
Posted by: inky | November 8, 2009 8:09 AM
Posted by: I heart Schadenfreude | November 7, 2009 4:37 PM
Here's a link to the bill online (that's the interwebs for you luddites).
http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf
Read it and tell us what it says.
***********************************
That link is for House Bill 3200. The bill that passed (so far) is House 3962. The full bill is not online at this time. Your link is for the bill as it was in July and that is no good anymore.
This bill is not reform and if you really think it is I am sad for you. Real reform would take people with guts doing the right thing.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 8, 2009 10:15 AM
Hey, " Gary ", are you really that stupid or are you just trying out a new comedy routine ? In either case, you are woefully wrong !! Since the beginning of humanity's climb out of the slime, group cohesion and cooperation, have been a necessity, not a luxury !! What is a group, but the many, working for the common good. Then, there appears, almost by " divine right", the king, the CEO, who, begins to deny members of that group, certain prerogatives, certain freedoms, that only they are allowed to continue to enjoy. Out of that social construct, capitalism is spawned !! The essence of capitalism is profit and where does profit come from, but the production of goods and services. Already, there is a great divide between the persons who work to produce these goods and services and those who finance their production, which includes the owners and management. To make a long story short, the capitalists and their agents, assumed that God was again on their side and that allowed them to disrespect, exploit and debase, not only men and women, but even children, in other words, the workers. That is when God gave the group, a great idea: The unions !! Once again, group cohesion and cooperation would allow them to escape from the slime of capitalism. would allow the many to work for the common good. It wasn't meant to be, for the capitalists had all of the money and they bought the best government, money could buy. That government, systematically, for 50 years has tried to destroy that great idea, God gave to us, workers. Fortunately, that God-given idea is still working its magic, forcing the management-owners, the capitalists, to respect, to pay a living wage and stop exploiting us, the people. You can not destroy a good idea, I don't care how much money you throw at it, from now, until eternity. America was in great economic shape when the unions were a player on the national stage. Now, we have let the Corporations move our good paying jobs to cheap labor markets, over seas or outside of America. Then, we have allowed them to return those foreign made goods, back to America, charging the same prices, we would pay, had they been made by labor union, American workers. Our own government was part of this diabolical scheme, the government helped in the financing of the moving of the good jobs, to cheap labor markets. As I wrote, above, we have the best government money can buy !!
That is why the well orchestrated opposition to President Obama. He wants to, and is working towards, eliminating the chasm between the haves and the have-nots, but the Corporations want that divide. They want to maintain their " chosen people " status. They want to think they are special and, therefore, they are entitled to be paid 500-1000% more than their average workers. That is why the absurdity of the charges from the Republican-Libertarians, about socialism, communism, even the silliest charge of them all; Hitlerism. Can anyone with any reason, give such a nonsensical utterance the time of day, let alone, any serious consideration. I do not think so, but the Republican-Libertarians will make them silly charges, daily.They have nothing else to offer America, but to denigrate and insult our President, President Obama. Their silliness is hilarious, because in the same breath, they want us to think of them as real and honest Americans, yet they act quite the contrary !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE.NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | November 8, 2009 10:15 AM
The world according to Don. Lord help us.
Hey Don, since you love Big Government so much. What entity has ALWAYS historically been the suppressor of its subjects (hint)?
Posted by: Gary | November 8, 2009 3:37 PM
" Gary ", are you referring to a monarchy, a theocracy, an oligarchy, a dictatorship, an authoritarian regime or even a Corporate State, like America has become? If you want any of my " pontifications ", can you be just a bit more specific, " Gary " ?
Oh, my God, I hope I am not sounding like that leading sycophant of the Republican-Libertarian gaggle and of these pages, " John W " !! I will have to say my prayers tonight and sincerely hope, that never, ever happens !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | November 8, 2009 9:29 PM
Herbie @ 3:27 a.m.
Could not agree with u more. As u know, as I know, Liberal solutions are NEVER directed at obtaining solutions AND the explanations of their arguments rarely aligns with what they actually say or do. When u are mainlining the koolaid though, it matters not, but I like those hours ~ Good Guitar playing hours.
Main Entry: so•cial•ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Gary @ 8:31 p.m.,
Thanx for providing a definition of Socialism. I have, in the past, done the same thing in Swampland. To our Liberal friends, I never mean to offend anyone with the word “socialist”, but referring to a “socialist” as a “socialist” should not be taken as some kind of wild insult. We all are who we are. Feel the freedom to own it.
Don Fitzgerald,
I did read your lengthy defense of Socialism. First, there was the obligatory insult, but then u actually got on with it. Liberals rarely ever do that. Good for u, but Unions !! ~ a great idea from God? You got a little comedy routine going on yourself. I really don’t think God decreed unions. That is NOT so written. This would only be found in the book of Jeremiah Wright and his intellectually challenged friends.
I don’t hate unions, but they ain’t all that. They are no more than a PAC group for the democrat party, one of its many owners. Eliminate the capitalists, and you probably won’t be needing any damn unions. If you hate a company, you can always quit. Where do I go to escape the heavy-handed arm of the socialist democrats.
We understand too that you hate capitalism and its tentacles, but you want to empower the socialists of the democrat party to have an even GREATER degree of control over every aspect of ALL of our lives than any capitalist could ever accomplish. We “Republican-Libertarians”, whatever that is, fail to see the value that would bring to the quality of any one’s pathetic existence. I suspect that goats really like being part of a group, but my desire to roam with a herd of damn goats just does not go that deep.
“All Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.”
Lord John Acton has that one right. We have a CONSTITUTION. We need to respect it every once in a while.
Posted by: Django - N Exile In/Around the 30th Parallel | November 9, 2009 4:39 PM