Democrats clear impasse blocking health care vote
Published: November 7, 2009
Updated: November 7, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — Capping months of struggle, House Democrats cleared an abortion-related impasse blocking a vote on sweeping health care legislation late Friday and officials expressed optimism they had lined up the support needed to pass President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
A vote was expected on the legislation on Saturday, after Obama’s scheduled midmorning trip to the Capitol complex to make one final pitch for its approval. The bill is designed to spread coverage to tens of millions who now lack it and ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Under the late-night arrangement covering abortion, Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were given an opportunity to try and insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.
Those proposals are likely to pass, assuming Republican abortion opponents vote for them.
The leadership’s hope is that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority.
The plan emerged from hours of meetings presided over by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and involving lawmakers on both sides of the abortion issue and officials from the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops. It effectively ended a standoff that dated to last summer, when the issue arose in one of three committees that debated the legislation.
There was no immediate reaction from prominent abortion rights supporters called to the late-night negotiations in the Capitol.
Separately, Pelosi and the leadership sought to ease concerns among Hispanic holdouts on the legislation.
“We’re very close” to having enough votes to prevail, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in a midday assessment, although he cautioned at the time that a scheduled Saturday vote could slip by a day or two and sought to pin the blame on possible Republican delaying tactics.
“Nice try, Rep. Hoyer, but you can’t blame Republicans when the fact is you just don’t have the votes,“ shot back Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for the GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.
Hours later, Democrats were still trying to get them.
In a midnight-hour appearance before the House Rules Committee, Stupak said he hoped the House would pass a ban on any abortion benefit from being offered in a government-run insurance option that is envisioned under the bill, except in instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in danger.
Separately, he said that he and his allies wanted a similar ban on coverage under comprehensive policies offered by private insurers in a federally regulated exchange that would be created. Individuals would be able to buy supplemental abortion coverage as long as they used their own money, and not federal subsidies designed to make insurance affordable.
“We are not writing a new federal abortion policy,“ he said, adding that his intent was to transplant into the health insurance bill restrictions that apply to other federal programs.
Ellsworth added, “From day one, my goal has been to ensure federal tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions and to provide Americans with pro-life options on the exchange. And I am proud to be part of an effort to help make this goal a reality.“
Stupak also said attempts during the evening to reach a compromise that both sides could support had ultimately collapsed.
“I think we have a fundamental disagreement in this issue. That’s a reality,“ California Rep. Henry Waxman, a supporter of abortion rights, said after hours of closed-door talks on the issue.
In a struggle that combined the fate of Obama’s signature policy initiative and a 2010 campaign issue, bipartisanship was not an option.
GOP leaders boasted that all 177 House Republicans stood ready to oppose the $1.2 trillion bill, which would create a new federally supervised insurance marketplace where the uninsured or those without employer-provided coverage could purchase it.
Consumers would have the option of picking a government-run plan, the most hotly contested item in the legislation and the basis for the Republican claim that Democrats were planning a government takeover of the insurance industry.
Democrats said their bill was designed to spread coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and restrain the growth of health care spending nationally. The Congressional Budget Office said that if enacted, the measure would extend coverage to 96 percent of all eligible Americans within 10 years.
Obama and others in his administration spent part of the day lobbying intensely for its passage.
Rep. Jason Altmire, a second-term Democrat from western Pennsylvania, said he received calls during the day from the president, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Their message was “this is a historic moment. You don’t want to end up with nothing,“ he said.
Altmire added his callers emphasized the legislation would change once it left the House, but if it’s defeated now the drive to enact sweeping changes would be over for the foreseeable future. He said he remained undecided on his vote.
Several Democrats have already announced their opposition, most of them moderate to conservative members of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition.
Democrats hold 258 seats in the House and can afford 40 defections and still wind up with 218, a majority if all lawmakers vote.
The controversy surrounding illegal immigrants remains “a work in progress,“ Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New Yorker and chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, said after a midday meeting in Pelosi’s office.
As drafted, the legislation permits illegal immigrants to purchase coverage with their own money inside the insurance exchange that would be created — a provision that the 23-member Hispanic Caucus wants retained in any final compromise that reaches Obama’s desk.
One lawmaker who attended the session, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, said members of the Hispanic Caucus sought and received assurances from Pelosi that she and the leadership would support them as the bill made its way through the House and ultimately to the president’s desk. But this lawmaker said the speaker was not able to get a pledge in return that the Hispanics would all vote for the bill regardless of how their issue was ultimately settled.
Despite the uncertainty, Hispanic lawmakers generally have a strong incentive to support the legislation. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 31 percent of Hispanics are uninsured, roughly double the rate of 15 percent for the U.S. population as a whole.
___
Associated Press writers Ken Thomas and Erica Werner contributed to this report.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Reader Reactions
Gee, GF, I would think you would read… the whole article. How about this line, which was in big, fat, bold print:
“Pelosi’s plan doesn’t have waiting period”
The one that was voted on already and approved has provisions to make the insurance companies that drop such individuals would have to take up the interim slack (the aforementioned 6 months).
Do you know how the legislative process works? See, bills have to pass both houses of Congress, but before it goes to the President for a signature, it must go through a conference committee which irons out the differences in the bill (I’m betting that potion of the House bill will be preserved), at which point the final draft has to go back to both houses for final approval, then to the President.
So, here you are talking about the House bill as if it was the one passed by the Senate Finance Committee. You did know there were two different bills didn’t you? Or were you being intentionally misleading? Nah, you wouldn’t have posted that article that you didn’t bother reading, if that was the case.
Pwned by your own source. Good one.
Gee 12, I would think you would read. At least the bill you love!
here let me help you - from the most far left news site around:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33654867/ns/health-health_care/
“ou’re afraid your cancer is back, and a health insurance company just turned you down. Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems. Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.“
Please, RIF, and remove your ignorance.
My leftist friends, when you say it’s W that got us here, know that W often “reached across the isle” to join hands with your hyper-spenders on capital hill. Did he ever veto a spending bill?
That’s some serious revisionism there. I mean this was only a a few years ago, if that. The mainline republican narrative I remember from the time is that “obstructionist democrats” were delaying spending authorizations thereby endangering our national security. I wonder how quickly we are all supposed to beLIEve this “new history”.
The only reason we had any recovery at all from the market crash in March 2000 was the Bush tax cuts in 2001, the looming expiration of which is depressing the economy.
Well that and off budget massive war spending and artificially low interest rates and 1 time cost savings from hyper deindustrialization and outsourcing and the consistant redistribution of earnings from workers to “owners”, whose only real claim to ownership of anything was massive leverage….
But he let conservatives down, and propped leftists up, with the lax border, the ‘stimulus’ mentality, free prescription drugs (a free lunch), Harriet Myers, who he quickly corrected, and and with his inefficient ways of prosecuting the Iraq war - he was LBJohnson-like in keeping Rumsfeld around so long.
This might have been believable if any major element of the republican party had been raising the alarm..WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING. But they didn’t, they did the opposite…they reveled in these policies (and others that actually were truly sinister).
There weren’t republicans acting like democrats, they were republicans acting like republicans. What I find interesting is that there is all of this hyperbole about about socialism/communism and yet this constant revisionism and scapegoating is right out of the soviet playbook. It really is a stunning paradox.
jerry, no valid point? As if you have made one?! LoL. “a hater of change”? What rock did you dig that one out of? You like insolvent ponzi schemes and your idea of change is to create a new one instead of changing the existing one I see. do you really believe the BS you spew? Why duck my valid point about Bush’s tax cuts stimulating the economy in 2001? No, most of Bush’s faults and mis-steps came when he “reached across the isle” and abandoned spending discipline. Essentially, the Barney’s Frank push for sub-prime lending was an end run around a very positive thing for the economy - an end run around the Gingrich Welfare Reform. When you undermine conservative reform, the economy loses. Thank goodness for Bush’s tax cuts though. Wish the (R) congresses had had the guts to make them permanent. The (D)s NEVER would. Then businesses wouldn’t have been encouraged to avoid paying them by firing people and going overseas. Again we see, when Rs act like Ds, America loses.
dr hoagie,
you are correct, the fecal matter has hit the fan, causing even the wild-eyed Pelosi to blink. Keep pushing the agenda, folks, the sound you’ll hear in 2010 is a large flushing sound.
jerry, attacking Bush doesn’t make B-HO right. He will remain our worst president.
My leftist friends, when you say it’s W that got us here, know that W often “reached across the isle” to join hands with your hyper-spenders on capital hill. Did he ever veto a spending bill? W is no where near the sole blame bearer. The only reason we had any recovery at all from the market crash in March 2000 was the Bush tax cuts in 2001, the looming expiration of which is depressing the economy. But he let conservatives down, and propped leftists up, with the lax border, the ‘stimulus’ mentality, free prescription drugs (a free lunch), Harriet Myers, who he quickly corrected, and and with his inefficient ways of prosecuting the Iraq war - he was LBJohnson-like in keeping Rumsfeld around so long. When Republicans act like Democrats, having no restraint at all in the spending arena, America creates things like the “affordable housing” bubble that Barney Frank was so fond of until it burst, and America loses. Now would you please tell your buddy Obama that Bush spent TOO MUCH instead of not enough?
hah..passed
AP: “But with little or no doubt about the outcome, the rhetoric lacked the fire of last summer’s town hall meetings, when some critics accused Democrats of plotting “death panels” to hasten the demise of senior citizens.“
It is quite reassuring, after all the uncivilness, that our leaders can have a calm and sober debate. I’m impressed.
xyz: I admit, America WAS marching towards Marxism without a whimper. Until 1/20/09.
The radical wing of the Democrat Party and some Republican believed in an incremental silent march towards Marxism. The Democrats, as the Soviets, were very cautious and methodical.
They were patient in getting socialism anchored in our society brick by brick.
But that all changed.
An inexperienced ideologue from Harvard had no idea how the game was played. He thought convincing Oprah to vote for him was a mandate to dismantle and destroy the Constitution in plain view of proud Americans.
He, single handledly, will end the march towards Marxism as he has brought the silent takeover to light.
He, single handedly, will ruin the Democrat Party.
Proud Democrats are having their eyes opened to what they have been blindly supporting for decades.
Except for a year or so of his rein of terror on America, Obama’s election may prove to be the saving factor of our times. His naive inexperience has opened the eyes of those who never saw incremental Marxism creeping into our society.
In his effort to dismantle the Constitution, he inadvertently has exposed the new Democrats for what they are. And America noticed and spoke last Tuesday.
If brainwashed New Jerseyians noticed, you know Peoria and Dixie is full aware.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement