“Yesterday, I voted for the Upton bill that would allow people to stay on their existing health insurance plans. My reason was simple: The President of the United States repeatedly told the American people that if they liked their health insurance plans, they could keep them. I believed him as did many Americans and I think the president’s promises should be kept.
“I have heard from many people whose health insurance plans were cancelled, only to find out that comparable plans on the exchanges are as much as four times more expensive. The goal of the Affordable Care Act remains to provide quality, affordable health insurance for all Americans.
“The Upton bill may not ultimately fix this issue, but it’s an important step in that direction. I believe that the Affordable Care Act will accomplish many of its goals within a few years including making health care accessible to all, and I intend to support it. I remain committed to doing everything I can – including working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle – to continue to improve the law and address any challenges we face as we implement the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.”
On Friday, the United State House of Representatives approved legislation sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) that would allow insurers to continue to offer their policies on the individual market for up to one year. The vote passed 261-157 with 39 Democrats voting with Republicans, including Democrat Jerry McNerney.
The Upton bill (H.R. 3350) would let people with insurance that doesn’t meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act through 2014—a one year extension. Upton’s bill not only lets existing policies continue, but insurers could sell individual policies to new customers. The White House has vowed to veto Upton’s bill if it reaches the President’s desk.
Locally in the Bay Area, here is how some of our representatives voted:
- John Garamendi (D) – Yes
- Mike Thompson (D) – No
- Ami Bera (D) – Yes
- Jerry McNerney (D) – Yes
- George Miller (D) – Not Voting
- Eric Swalwell (D) – Yes
Here is a look at the Bill which was just two-pages.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013′.
SEC. 2. IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT.
(a) In General- Notwithstanding any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any amendment made by such Act or by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), a health insurance issuer that has in effect health insurance coverage in the individual market as of January 1, 2013, may continue after such date to offer such coverage for sale during 2014 in such market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 or 1321 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041).
(b) Treatment as Grandfathered Health Plan in Satisfaction of Minimum Essential Coverage- Health insurance coverage described in subsection (a) shall be treated as a grandfathered health plan for purposes of the amendment made by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Hypocrite, he voted yes or the original Affordable health care act now he is getting heat from his constituents he has gone the other way.
It should be called the “Unaffordable Care Act”. It’s what happens when you allow the healthcare insurance companies to write this act.
McNerney did the right thing. I wonder if he every researched the original Obamacare. No matter what these politicians need to be a part of the law. If it’s suppose to be good for the people it needs to be good for the law makers too. This real sissy on this vote was Miller. Miller shows everyone that he is playing both sides. A bit lazy when he should be representing the right thing. We all need to remember the politicians that voted for stupid Obamacare. It seems the republicans had the right idea to delay it. The democrats were all sheep lead by Obama and his lies to this ego based law from an incompetent leader.Congress is broken.
Time for Miller to go. He misses too many votes.
I don’t think anyone ever read the health care act. They just signed it just like Bart did. Very common practice for politicians, even local ones.
Stop using dumb talking points you heard on Fox News. If you didn’t read it, blame yourself. It was, during the debate, and continues to be available for reading on the web for anyone who takes the initiative. Any law that works it’s way through Congress can be followed by those who chose to be informed.
Elected politicians generally don’t read a Bill of that size in its entirety due to time constraints. That’s what staffers are for. They read and provide a summary for the people they work for.
That being said I think Jerry is entirely wrong here. He voted the popular thing, not the right thing. This was about allowing insurance companies to continue to sell JUNK policies to unsuspecting consumers. It’s a continuation of exactly what Obamacare was supposed to stop.
Shame on him.
Why as an informed society do people continue to vote in career politicians who are bad for office? We do it all the time and the state and country continue to get out of touch with who they represent. People need to smarten up and new young politicians who are in touch with us.
No need to follow these things at the government website – our leader was very specific about the key details. If we like our current plan we can keep it and government control of the health insurance marketplace will bend the cost curve down. Boom! We all win and we can all thank Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic caucus.
Medical insuranced is our most recent constitutional right and we are indeed fortunate that the Central Command knows what form of medical insurance my comrads and I must be forced to buy in order to adequately enjoy these rights.
The marketplaces have bent the cost curves down. They still rise, just at a much slower rate. Anyone looking at the cost trends of the last 15 years can see that. Most who have engaged the marketplaces to comparison shop really understand it firsthand.
You get to pick your insurance in that marketplace and your premiums and deductibles will be determined by choices you make. Insurance costs are determined largely by pool size and “quality” of that pool. Yes, the healthier do subsidize the sicker. Just like in auto insurance the safer subsidize the more dangerous element in society. Healthcare is no different.
I guess seat belts and no texting while driving are also “comrad” worthy in your view of our civilized society? I know that Darwin would take care of those who think seat belts and safer laws in society are a nuisance. But you see, when you initiate a less than successful “exit” from planet Earth through your own stupidity you risk putting the rest of us on the hook for your lengthy hospital stay. Because you see, the government also mandated that emergency room treatment regardless of ability to pay was mandatory.
By the way, the guy who signed that into law was named Ronald Reagan.
We are the only developed nation(for now) that does not have universal healthcare. We instead continue to make excuses for billion dollar corporations to fleece the public at large for an overpriced middleman service that rations care, limits access with lifetime caps and was allowing outright denial of life saving care for something as simple as omitting a case of acne in your application. Do not fool yourself. Insurance companies are in the business of making profits. Their primary purpose is not delivering access to life saving health care.
Vulture capitalism at its worst. Why anyone would even remotely defend or desire to go back to that system is beyond me.
Comparing auto and health insurance is a fools errand.
The former has not been determined to be a constitutional right, and is not governed by nation’s central command authority. No one is required to purchase auto insurance as a condition of living in this country. States have laws controlling the registration and operation of autos that utilize public roadways; Financial responsibility must be demonstrated and can be done with either insurance or a posted bond.
Also, the insurance pools that have been created are intended to differentiate high risk from low risk to the benefit of low risk customers.
I’m afraid you’re very mistaken if you think the ACA makes healthcare a constitutional right.
The rest of your rant being based on such a flawed premise isn’t worth the energy to rebut.
Clueless, I think you are mistaken. Neither auto or health insurance is a constitutional right. Both are choices. If I choose not to have auto insurance IRS is not going to charge me a penalty or tax because I am not participating. If you think health care is a constitutional right you are wrong. This Obama health care is a tax. A tax not voted by the people. Why? because when a person has rights they can choose or refuse them. I have a right to a gun but I don’t have to have one. I have a right to freedom of speech but I do not have to pay to exorcize it. Obamacare has a tax penalty for those who do not use it. That is a tax. If it was a right then we the people could choose not to participate without getting taxed or fined. Finally, If what you say about going into an emergency room is and getting treated is a right and correct, then there is no need for Obamacare as would be a waste unless it is a tax. Rights are a simple thing. When you assert your rights it does not cost you, only the people who died for you to have them. Be thankful that some rights still remain.
DBM – I guess it depends on who you want to believe. President Obama or your lyin’ eyes.
If we take President Obama at his word, then recall that when ACA passed he clearly stated that this was not a tax. It would NEVER have passed and become law had this been a tax.
The Act itself refers to a “penalty” rather than a tax for those who “choose” to not purchase an ACA compliant insurance policy.
President Obama has made it clear that the ACA penalizes but does not tax for people who don’t participate. Are you implying that his words can’t be trusted?
If this was a tax bill, after all, it would have had to come from the House rather than the Senate.
And none other than Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and many others have asserted that the right to affordable healthcare is a constitutional right based on the explicit right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do we not believe these learned elected leaders?
I’m fine with your analysis, but your version is challenged by President Obama and the supporters of his health care plan.
Comments are closed.