By DAVID ESPO and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers David Espo And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 22 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In a triumph for President Barack Obama, Democrats narrowly pushed sweeping health care legislation through a key congressional committee Friday night and cleared the way for a September showdown in the House.

The 31-28 vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along party lines, was weeks later than either the White House or Democratic leaders had hoped.

As part of a last-minute series of changes, the committee agreed to cap increases in the cost of insurance sold under the bill, and also to give the federal government authority to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare.

The new provisions were part of an intensive effort Democrats made in recent days to satisfy the conflicting demands of liberals and conservatives on the panel, unity necessary to overcome a solid wall of Republican opposition.

"We have agreed we need to pull together," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the committee chairman who presided over hours of private negotiations and public committee meetings. Five Democrats opposed the bill.

The measure is designed to extend health insurance to millions who now lack it, at the same time it strives to slow the growth in medical costs nationwide — Obama's twin goals.

While the pace of action was slower than party leaders had hoped, it was speedier by far than the timetable in the Senate.

There, Democrats said a deadline of Sept. 15 had been imposed on marathon talks aimed at producing a bipartisan compromise. Several officials said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had informed fellow senators he intends to convene his Finance Committee to begin voting by then.

Without a bipartisan bill, Baucus would presumably have to produce a measure tailored to Democratic specifications, a step he has said repeatedly he would rather avoid. It wasn't clear how much the deadline was Baucus' idea, and how much it reflected growing impatience at the White House and on the part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The Energy and Commerce Committee was the third of three House panels to act on the legislation, a measure that numerous lawmakers note would rearrange one-sixth of the nation's economy. A vote in the full House is expected in September, after lawmakers return from a monthlong vacation.

In the run-up to final approval, the panel handed the drug industry a victory, voting 47-11 to grant 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. The decision was a setback for the White House, which had hoped to give patients faster access to generic versions of costly biotech medicines like the blockbuster cancer drug Avastin.

Democrats also turned back a Republican bid to strip out a provision allowing the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry. The vote was 31-28, reflecting the shaky majority Democrats had on a 59-member committee they nominally controlled with 36 members.

The Democrats who opposed the final bill were Reps. John Barrow of Georgia; Rick Boucher of Virginia; Jim Matheson of Utah; Charlie Melancon of Louisiana and Bart Stupak of Michigan.

Under the bill, insurance companies would be required to sell coverage to all seeking it, without exclusions for pre-existing medical conditions. The federal government would provide subsidies for lower-income families to help them afford policies that would otherwise be out of their reach.

The bills would set up so-called exchanges, in effect national marketplaces where consumers both with and without subsidies could evaluate different policies and choose the one they wanted.

The main expansion of coverage would not come until 2013 — after the next presidential election.

Even so, the political stakes are enormous for Obama and the Democrats as they strive to pass legislation that has proven elusive for years. Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to the approach they chose, and outside groups on both sides of the issue arranged a heavy dose of television advertising over August.

"Let me assure you: There will be a health care reform bill passed and it will make a big difference in the lives of the American people," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in an interview.

But the House Republican Leader, John Boehner of Ohio, countered that "Democrats are in for a long, hot summer once they return to their congressional districts, where Americans are lining up in opposition to a government takeover of health care. "

On a vote that crossed party lines, abortion opponents failed in an attempt to bar insurance plans that offer abortion services from accepting customers with government subsidies. The vote was 31-27.

On Thursday night, the panel agreed on a provision saying the government could neither require nor prohibit abortion services in insurance plans sold in the exchange.

Waxman's announcement of a series of last-minute changes capped a tumultuous period that began more than two weeks ago when conservative and moderate Democrats on the panel sought changes.

Needing their votes, Waxman began negotiations that grew to include Pelosi and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. An agreement at midweek excluded more businesses from a requirement to offer insurance to their workers and reduced subsidies for lower-income uninsured.

It also swiftly triggered a counter-revolt among liberals, who demanded the subsidies be restored in full.

The final deal accommodated them without sacrificing the concessions made earlier to the conservatives, and included numerous other provisions.

Insurance plans sold in the exchange would need government approval before increasing premiums by more than one and half times medical inflation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated that medical prices rose at an annual rate of 3.6 percent annually for the three months ending in June.

The provision giving the federal government the right to negotiate for better drug prices under Medicare has long been a goal of Democrats who say it could lower costs for seniors. Critics argue that is unlikely unless Congress also limits the drugs than can be sold, thereby giving the government the ability to play one company off against another.

That has long been viewed as politically unfeasible under Medicare, because it would limit the choice that seniors now enjoy.

But including restrictions in the government health insurance option would place it in line with Medicaid, the government program for the poor, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs and many private plans that limit drug choice.

have to confess I havent been following it very close

I think anything the government touches they screw up

so I expect the situation will get worse

I do like the part about doing away with pre-existing conditions. hopefully that will go through right about the time I get a kidney transplant and maybe I'll actually be able to get insurance

I like this part:

As part of a last-minute series of changes, the committee agreed to cap increases in the cost of insurance sold under the bill, and also to give the federal government authority to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices under Medicare.

Does anybody have more information about this?

In the run-up to final approval, the panel handed the drug industry a victory, voting 47-11 to grant 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. The decision was a setback for the White House, which had hoped to give patients faster access to generic versions of costly biotech medicines like the blockbuster cancer drug Avastin.

The government negotiates much like the mob. Basically, they are going to pay what they want and there is nothing the drug companies can do about it.

If this grows too far and profits get cut too much, just watch R&D fall.


As for the second post, the idea is to extend patent protection in order to encourage further research. however, if there are little profits, the incentive will not exist anyway. By allowing a single producer, costs increase naturally (mostly to make up their R&D costs in creating the drug, not to mention the smaller client base for such a specialized drug will automatically increase price.

yeah the White House was pushing for 7 years I think

that is the length of time where they can market it exclusively without generics being available

They'll just change the color of the pill, shape of pill or shape of bottle and hold the patent for 30yrs so a generic will not be made available for many years to come.

and we will have the big pharma to thank for that...among many other things.

color and shape are not patentable. The formula is. Once the patent runs out, they have to allow others to reverse engineer it.

but...

If you have a patent in other industries... Exclusivity only lasts for ONE year...

We must like to be fleeced... We let them do it all the darn time.

Government only knows how to extort and counterfeit.

Name me one market that government has gotten their tentacles into that has improved said market?

They couldn't even run a brothel.

Social Security and Medicare/caid whatever it is are two prime examples of Government interference. If Politics would stay out of stuff it might be ok, but look at the two I mentioned.

Curious, you want to see them both eliminated completely?

And the deficit proves it.....




The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$3.83 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

eventually, yes. Honestly you should as well...

Honestly I absulutely would not want to see that happen. Life is too unpredictable to be with out them. I have been lucky, though one day I might not be so lucky.

Those things are not much more than government protected ponzi schemes.

Yes well of course they are, War, what was I thinking...

I agree.