Changes

==2009==

==2009==

Health care funding was the majotr political issue of 2009, with the Republicans in near-solid opposition and the Democrats divided. On 7 November 2009 the House passed its version, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" (H.R. 3962). It would cost $1.1 trillion but now goes to the Senate where its fate is uncertain.  

Health care funding was the major political issue of 2009, with the Republicans in near-solid opposition and the Democrats divided. On 7 November 2009 the House passed its version, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act" (H.R. 3962). It would cost $1.1 trillion but now goes to the Senate where its fate is uncertain.  

It just barely passed 215-210, as 39 Democrats deserted Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]]'s leadership; only one Republican voted yes.  Pelosi, a liberal, is a strong supporter of abortion but to get the 215 votes she had to give in to Catholic leaders nationally and abortion opponents in her own caucus and allow them to impose tight restrictions that bar any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.  As a result numerous liberals denounced the bill even as they voted for it.<ref>David M. Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes, [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08scene.html?_r=1 "Abortion Was at Heart of Wrangling," ''New York Times'' Nov 7, 2009]</ref>  

It just barely passed 215-210, as 39 Democrats deserted Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]]'s leadership; only one Republican voted yes.  Pelosi, a liberal, is a strong supporter of abortion but to get the 215 votes she had to give in to Catholic leaders nationally and abortion opponents in her own caucus and allow passage of the [[Stupak Amendment]]. The amendment imposes tight restrictions that bar any insurance plan that is purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.  As a result numerous liberals denounced the bill even as they voted for it.<ref>David M. Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes, [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health/policy/08scene.html?_r=1 "Abortion Was at Heart of Wrangling," ''New York Times'' Nov 7, 2009]</ref>  

The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June 2009 explaining the [[Obama administration]]'s goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."

The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June 2009 explaining the [[Obama administration]]'s goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."

Obama emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]] to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council. Comparative effectiveness would become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify cost.  The existence of such a program in the U.S. similiar the British NHS's Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358233780260914.html?mod=djemEditorialPage</ref>

Obama emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]] to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council. Comparative effectiveness would become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify cost.  The existence of such a program in the U.S. similar the British NHS's Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358233780260914.html?mod=djemEditorialPage</ref>

===New Tax===

===New Tax===