Some bloggers quickly went to work dissecting the bill, pointing out their least favorite provisions or looking for differences that remain with the other chamber. Others are taking in the moment.
Critical Condition’s Mark Hemingway catalogues responses from GOP lawmakers, including Minority Leader John Boehner, who says the bill is “clearly designed for government takeover of our system.”
Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has 10 reasons that Republicans should support the bill (though only one GOP senator has so far), framing in an “Republicans asked for, Republicans got” style. One example:
1. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR – DEFICIT NEUTRAL BILL: “Do the American people believe that this almost 2,000 page bill won’t add to the deficit?” [Rep. Eric Cantor, 10/29/2009]
HOUSE BILL – DEFICIT NEUTRAL BILL: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill costs $894 billion over 10 years and actually reduces the deficit by $30 billion and continues to reduce the deficit over the second 10 years.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey quips, “Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic Caucus will unveil their version of ObamaCare this morning, and the New York Times reports some significant changes made in the last few days. First, the ‘public option,’ which had changed to the quasi-Orwellian name of ‘competitive option,’ now goes the full 1984 to the ‘consumer option.’”
Heritage’s Marguerite Higgins writes, “As we scour through this 1,990-page monster of a bill (topping the 1,502-page health bill from the Senate Finance Committee), it will be important to determine how the feds and health care providers will come to these negotiated rates. Plus, other questions crop up, like will the government-run plan be subject to the same rules and market regulations that private insurers face? If we see the same language in the new House bill that was in H.R. 3200, then government will operate on an unlevel playing field where it has a clear advantage in the marketplace.”
Families USA’s Julia Eisman says the bill “sets a gold standard.”
The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn titles his post, “House to PhRMA: No Deal.” Cohn notes that the House bill does not square with the White House and PhRMA’s $80 billion deal: “The House, though, was not party to this deal. And so it’s decided to ask a little more–about twice as much, in fact.”
The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein interviews Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., saying, “there is no politician alive today who has worked as long, or as hard, on health-care reform as Rep. John Dingell Jr.” Indeed, the octogenarian has worked on health legislation for decades. Dingell says, “This is the furthest I can recall health-care reform ever going, including in my days, and my dad’s days. A bill moving in the House. A bill moving in the Senate. Strong support in the admin. Strong popular support for the bill. A carefully crafted piece of legislation. A willingness of everybody to work together to work together towards what is a widely shared common goal.”
And The American Spectator’s Philip Klein points out new tax provisions, “Scanning through the bill, I noticed that the bill would add a new section to the federal tax code: “PART VIII:HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES.” Among the new taxes are penalties for individuals who don’t purchase insurance and employers who don’t provide insurance, income tax surcharges of up to 5.6% to those earning more than $1 million, and a 2.5% excise tax on medical devices.”
