Late in the evening Saturday, 219 Democrats and one Republican voted to pass the House version of health care reform, squeaking the historic bill past and sending the debate on to the Senate. For a look at the wrangling necessary to get the contentious legislation passed, we talk with Trudy Lieberman, contributing editor at the Columbia Journalism Review and healthcare blogger for CJR.org, along with our correspondent in Washington, Todd Zwillich.
Today's Takeaway: Dharun Ravi, NATO Summit, David McCullough, Chen Guangcheng and Unemployment for Older Americans
Why Texting in Class Might Actually Be a Good Thing
Lunch with Chef Seamus Mullen
NATO and Occupy Protests Rock Chicago
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with The BBC World Service, New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
Comments [4]
I know the insurance companies are celebrating but are we the sheeple supposed to be happy about this?
: historical: as a : famous or important in history <historic battlefields> b : having great and lasting importance <a historic occasion> c : known or established in the past <historic interest rates> d : dating from or preserved from a past time or culture <historic buildings> <historic artifacts>
Thanks for the comment, Charles. Historic refers to a significant event in the past, with lasting effects. It does not confer any value judgments.
Celeste Headlee used the term "historic" to describe this vote. The same word was used this morning on the Diane Rehm Show.
"Historic," I presume, is intended to cnfer some favor on the vote. To imply that the vote was a positive thing, that will be broadly important, and decisive for policy, for years to come. And that is a virtual certainty to be untrue. The Senate will never, ever, agree to the significant provisions in this bill. This vote is just a minor way-station on the way to a Conference Committee. So what about this vote was "Historic"? Why use that term at all, Celeste, unless of course you really were trying to editorial ize your personal favor on the House bill?
The Stupak Amendment was just a continuation of the Hyde Amendment, not more: if the government subsidizes health plans, and these plans pay for abortions, then tax payer money is being used to pay for abortions. The Hyde Amendment said that federal or tax funds could not be used for abortion (70% of Americans agree), this just keeps it in place. The only difference is that the Hyde Amendment had to be renewed each year.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.