Pelosi: House Lacks Votes for Health Care Bill

[Guest]

Pelosi: House Lacks Votes for Health Care Bill

WASHINGTON – Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.

Pelosi, D-Calif., made the comment to reporters after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which participants vented frustration with the Senate's massive version of the legislation.

Her concession meant there was little hope for a White House-backed plan to quickly push the Senate-approved health bill through the House, followed by a separate measure making changes sought by House members, such as easing the Senate's tax on higher-cost health plans. Such an approach would be "problematic," she said.

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

Pelosi's remarks signaled that advancing health legislation through Congress will likely be a lengthy process — despite Democrats' desire for a quick election-year pivot to address jobs and the economy, which polls show are the public's top concern.

"We're not in a big rush," Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

[John317]

I want a health care bill passed but only after it has been well thought out and discussed first. Also, it needs to be read and understood by both houses, and the American people should know what it is. I don't think even the President understands it, at least he hasn't explained it in a way that shows he does, nor so that the American people have a grasp of it.

In any case, both political parties should be involved in the debate and discussions about it, and there shouldn't be an effort by the leadership to rush it through. If it is important enough to make into law, it is certainly important enough to take our time and get it right.

I don't think the government should be fining people for not having health insurance. This isn't what our government was created to do-- to micromanage our personal lives.

[Guest]

I couldn't agree more.

[John317]

Wow, Richard-- you and I sure agree on a lot of stuff.

[Guest]

Wow, Richard-- you and I sure agree on a lot of stuff.

Great minds think alike.

[Dr. Shane]

Hopefully the Republicans get a seat at the table and we get some good reform that makes health-care more affordable and available to more people. I fear that won't happen. We may not get anything and many on the right would consider that a victory.

[bonnie]

Hopefully the Republicans get a seat at the table and we get some good reform that makes health-care more affordable and available to more people. I fear that won't happen. We may not get anything and many on the right would consider that a victory.

Nothing compared to what the dems wanted is a great thing.

More people today have health care than ever before.85% of the insured are pleased with their coverage.

The dems great plan still left millions uninsured with the rest paying increased taxes and higher premiums.Unless of course you lived in the states that were up for sale and the union

[karl]

Originally Posted By: Shane

Hopefully the Republicans get a seat at the table and we get some good reform that makes health-care more affordable and available to more people. I fear that won't happen. We may not get anything and many on the right would consider that a victory.

Nothing compared to what the dems wanted is a great thing.

More people today have health care than ever before.85% of the insured are pleased with their coverage.

The dems great plan still left millions uninsured with the rest paying increased taxes and higher premiums.Unless of course you lived in the states that were up for sale and the union

Hopefully now we will get the real reforms that actually SAVE money. Like portability. Insurance availability across state lines. Tort reform. Practice guidelines.

I would have no objection to the government making available a nationwide affordable insurance plan which has no pre-existing exclusions. But they would have to do it without tapping taxpayers to underwrite the cost (unlike what they are doing with medicaid and medicare.) It would have to be voluntary and stand on its own. Even though the gov claims the insurance companies are gouging everyone, they don't go into competition with them because they can't even make it work on paper, much less in real life. The numbers just aren't there to make it feasible.

[Guest]

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high about that. The dims are still in the majority.

[Dr. Shane]

Hopefully now we will get the real reforms that actually SAVE money. Like portability. Insurance availability across state lines. Tort reform. Practice guidelines.

I would have no objection to the government making available a nationwide affordable insurance plan which has no pre-existing exclusions. But they would have to do it without tapping taxpayers to underwrite the cost (unlike what they are doing with medicaid and medicare.) It would have to be voluntary and stand on its own...

1. If we want to make insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions (and most people do) that means mandatory insurance.

2. One avenue to mandatory insurance is making employers provide insurance for employees and their families. That is a provision that needs to be part of any health reform. Those that do not have jobs would be covered under medical assistance.

3. Tort reform is a must if we are serious about controlling cost. We need to keep blood-sucking lawyers from leeching off from the medical industry. That is immoral. They drive the cost up of every medical service up so they can live in big house and take luxurious vacations.

4. The federal government has to establish medical plans that can be sold across state lines. Many states require insurance companies to provide specific benefits that are not required in other states. So a person in California cannot buy a policy from Texas because it doesn't have all of the same benefits. That problem needs to be resolved by the federal government establishing five or ten different policy packages that insurance companies can sell in any state.

[bonnie]

Quote:

1. If we want to make insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions (and most people do) that means mandatory insurance.

To cover pre-existing conditions for someone that has not been insured is like insuring your house after it starts to burn out of control.

Quote:

2. One avenue to mandatory insurance is making employers provide insurance for employees and their families. That is a provision that needs to be part of any health reform. Those that do not have jobs would be covered under medical assistance.

Those that do not have income are already receiving medical thru the welfare services.

If a employer is paying a fair wage it should be up to him/her whether they offer insurance.

Quote:

3. Tort reform is a must if we are serious about controlling cost. We need to keep blood-sucking lawyers from leeching off from the medical industry. That is immoral. They drive the cost up of every medical service up so they can live in big house and take luxurious vacations.

4. The federal government has to establish medical plans that can be sold across state lines. Many states require insurance companies to provide specific benefits that are not required in other states. So a person in California cannot buy a policy from Texas because it doesn't have all of the same benefits. That problem needs to be resolved by the federal government establishing five or ten different policy packages that insurance companies can sell in any state.

The federal government needs to get out of private business,remove the mandates and let insurance companies sell across state lines.

[Dr. Shane]

To cover pre-existing conditions for someone that has not been insured is like insuring your house after it starts to burn out of control.

[Guest]

Quote:

1. If we want to make insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions (and most people do) that means mandatory insurance.

To cover pre-existing conditions for someone that has not been insured is like insuring your house after it starts to burn out of control.

Quote:

2. One avenue to mandatory insurance is making employers provide insurance for employees and their families. That is a provision that needs to be part of any health reform. Those that do not have jobs would be covered under medical assistance.

Those that do not have income are already receiving medical thru the welfare services.

If a employer is paying a fair wage it should be up to him/her whether they offer insurance.

Quote:

3. Tort reform is a must if we are serious about controlling cost. We need to keep blood-sucking lawyers from leeching off from the medical industry. That is immoral. They drive the cost up of every medical service up so they can live in big house and take luxurious vacations.

4. The federal government has to establish medical plans that can be sold across state lines. Many states require insurance companies to provide specific benefits that are not required in other states. So a person in California cannot buy a policy from Texas because it doesn't have all of the same benefits. That problem needs to be resolved by the federal government establishing five or ten different policy packages that insurance companies can sell in any state.

The federal government needs to get out of private business,remove the mandates and let insurance companies sell across state lines.

Amen Bonnie

[bonnie]

Quote:

We NEED to get there. Insurance companies MUST cover pre-existing conditions.

Not the way they were planning and no,you have absolutely no right telling a private business what they have to do. None,ZIP. Don't like the way one does it,go to another

Quote:

Medical coverage is part of a fair wage. It MUST be part of health-care reform so that the playing field is level

Can you tell me where that is written. If a fair wage is being paid that is what a employer's obligation is.

Quote:

The government MUST do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. We CANNOT let insurance companies victimize the population. The government MUST regulate the industry.

Certainly beats the federal government victimizing people.

Part of the mess right now with not being able to sell across state lines comes from the government.

The government has no authority to run private business.

Generally insurance does just fine without Obama's bungling socialist idiocy.

The number of insured is higher now than ever.85% of them do not fell victimized and are happy with their insurance.

Remove the prohibition against selling across state lines,tort reform.Let employer's pay an employee the appropriate wage including what insurance would cost and let him take care of it himself.

[Dr. Shane]

you have absolutely no right telling a private business what they have to do. None,ZIP. Don't like the way one does it,go to another

[Guest]

Right again Bonnie.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Government tells private business what to do already. Of course they have the right. The government is elected democratically. If a business owner doesn't like it he or she can move to another country with laws they like better. That happens all the time.

Yes,Obama is doing a fine job of that.Other than protecting people from physical harm and theft the government has no business in a private business.

It might be good to reread the what the framers had in mind.

Quote:

Medical coverage as part of a fair wage has been established by the market place. However there are still some employers that will not (or cannot due to their competition) provide medical coverage. The government NEEDS to change that. And I am sure it will, it is just a matter of time.

Then let the marketplace determine that,not Obama and friends.

You are tight,the government will change and control things.

When the government of the US takes control of the citizens only God knows,but we are getting a pretty good picture of how it can be done.