| House Bill | Vote description | VoteMatch Usage | Candidate Voting |
|---|
Vote number 11-HV277 the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts
on Apr 15, 2011
regarding bill HCR34&SCR21 Ryan Budget Plan
Results: Passed 235-193 |
Proponent's Arguments for voting Yes: [Sen. DeMint, R-SC]: The Democrats have Medicare on a course of bankruptcy. Republicans are trying to save Medicare & make sure there are options for seniors in the future. Medicare will not be there 5 or 10 years from now. Doctors will not see Medicare patients at the rate [Congress will] pay. [Sen. Ayotte, R-NH]: We have 3 choices when it comes to addressing rising health care costs in Medicare. We can do nothing & watch the program go bankrupt in 2024. We can go forward with the President's proposal to ration care through an unelected board of 15 bureaucrats. Or we can show real leadership & strengthen the program to make it solvent for current beneficiaries, and allow future beneficiaries to make choices. Opponent's Arguments for voting No: [Sen. Conrad, D-ND]: In the House Republican budget plan, the first thing they do is cut $4 trillion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the wealthiest among us, they give them an additional $1 trillion in tax reductions. To offset these massive new tax cuts, they have decided to shred the social safety net. They have decided to shred Medicare. They have decided to shred program after program so they can give more tax cuts to those who are the wealthiest among us. [Sen. Merkley, D-TK]: The Republicans chose to end Medicare as we know it. The Republican plan reopens the doughnut hole. That is the hole into which seniors fall when, after they have some assistance with the first drugs they need, they get no assistance until they reach a catastrophic level. It is in that hole that seniors have had their finances devastated. We fixed it. Republicans want to unfix it and throw seniors back into the abyss. Then, instead of guaranteeing Medicare coverage for a fixed set of benefits for every senior--as Medicare does now--the Republican plan gives seniors a coupon and says: Good luck. Go buy your insurance. If the insurance goes up, too bad. |
Voting NO counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More federal funding for health coverage;
Voting YES counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 2; NO 188
Republicans:
YES 233; NO 5
Independents:
YES 0; NO 0 |
Vote number 11-HV264 repealing the "Prevention and Public Health" slush fund
on Apr 13, 2011
regarding bill H.1217 To repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund
Results: Passed 236-183 |
Congressional Summary:Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to repeal provisions establishing and appropriating funds to the Prevention and Public Health Fund (a Fund to provide for expanded and sustained national investment in prevention and public health programs to improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs). Rescinds any unobligated balanced appropriated to such Fund. Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Rep. Pitts, R-PA]: Section 4002 of PPACA establishes a Prevention and Public Health Fund, which my bill, H.R. 1217, would repeal. The PPACA section authorizes the appropriation of and appropriates to the fund from the Treasury the following amounts: - $500 million for FY 2010
- $750 million for FY11
- $1 billion for FY12
- $1.25 billion for FY13
- $1.5 billion for FY14
- and for FY15 and every fiscal year thereafter, $2 billion.
We have created a slush fund from which the Secretary of HHS can spend without any congressional oversight or approval. I would suggest to my colleagues that, if you wanted more funding to go towards smoking cessation or to any other program, the health care law should have contained an explicit authorization. By eliminating this fund, we are not cutting any specific program. This is about reclaiming our oversight role of how Federal tax dollars should be used. Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Waxman, D-CA]: This bill represents the Republicans' newest line of attack to disrupt, dismantle, and to ultimately destroy the Affordable Care Act. For many years, Republicans have joined with Democrats in supporting programs to prevent disease, to promote health and, in turn, to cut health care costs. But today, the House will vote to end funding for the first and only Federal program with dedicated, ongoing resources designed to make us a healthier Nation. |
Voting NO counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More federal funding for health coverage;
Voting YES counts for -2 points on VoteMatch question 5.
Voting YES counts as answer D on AmericansElect question 3;
Voting NO counts as answer B on AmericansElect question 3. |
Democrats:
YES 6; NO 182
Republicans:
YES 230; NO 1
Independents:
YES 0; NO 0 |
Vote number 2009-H187 regulating tobacco as a drug
on Apr 2, 2009
regarding bill HR1256&S982 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
Results: Passed 298-112 |
Congressional Summary:Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to provide for the regulation of tobacco products by the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Defines a tobacco product as any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption. Excludes from FDA authority the tobacco leaf and tobacco farms. Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. HEATH SHULER (D, NC-11): Putting a dangerous, overworked FDA in charge of tobacco is a threat to public safety. Last year, the FDA commissioner testified that he had serious concerns that this bill could undermine the public health role of the FDA. And the FDA Science Board said the FDA's inability to keep up with scientific advancements means that Americans' lives will be at risk. Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D, CA-30): The bill before us, the Waxman-Platts bill, has been carefully crafted over more than a decade, in close consultation with the public health community. It's been endorsed by over 1,000 different public health, scientific, medical, faith, and community organizations. Sen. HARRY REID (D, NV): Yesterday, 3,500 children who had never smoked before tried their first cigarette. For some, it will also be their last cigarette but certainly not all. If you think 3,500 is a scary number, how about 3.5 million. That is a pretty scary number. That is how many American high school kids smoke--3.5 million. Nearly all of them aren't old enough to buy cigarettes. It means we have as many boys and girls smoking as are participating in athletics in high schools. We have as many as are playing football, basketball, track and field, and baseball combined. |
Voting YES counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting NO counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 214; NO 8
Republicans:
YES 66; NO 99
Independents:
YES 18; NO 5 |
Vote number 2009-H016 expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program
on Jan 14, 2009
regarding bill H.R.2 SCHIP Reauthorization Act
Results: Passed 289-139 |
Congressional Summary:- Reauthorizes State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) through FY2013 at increased levels.
- Gives states the option to cover targeted low-income pregnant women
- Phases out coverage for nonpregnant childless adults.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. FRANK PALLONE (D, NJ-6): In the last Congress, we passed legislation that enjoyed bipartisan support as well as the support of the American people. Unfortunately, it did not enjoy the support of the President, who vetoed our bill twice, and went on to proclaim that uninsured children can simply go to the emergency room to have their medical needs met. As the Nation moves deeper into a recession and unemployment rates continue to rise, millions of Americans are joining the ranks of the uninsured, many of whom are children. We can't delay. We must enact this legislation now. Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. ROY BLUNT (R, MI-7): This bill doesn't require the States to meet any kind of threshold standard that would ensure that States were doing everything they could to find kids who needed insurance before they begin to spend money to find kids who may not have the same need. Under the bill several thousands of American families would be poor enough to qualify for SCHIP and have the government pay for their health care, but they'd be rich enough to still be required to pay the alternative minimum tax. The bill changes welfare participation laws by eliminating the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants to lawfully reside in the country before they can participate in this program. In the final bill, we assume that 65% of the children receiving the benefit wouldn't get the benefit anymore. It seems to me this bill needs more work, would have benefited from a committee hearing. It doesn't prioritize poor kids to ensure that they get health care first. |
Voting YES counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting NO counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 235; NO 3
Republicans:
YES 38; NO 130
Independents:
YES 16; NO 6 |
Vote number 2008-H491 overriding veto on expansion of Medicare
on Jul 15, 2008
regarding bill HR.6331 Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act
Results: Passed 383-41 |
Congressional Summary:- Extends Medicare to cover additional preventive services.
- Includes body mass index and end-of-life planning among initial preventive physical examinations.
- Eliminates by 2014 [the currently higher] copayment rates for Medicare psychiatric services.
Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH's veto message (argument to vote No):I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments. Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong. This bill is objectionable, and I am vetoing it because:- It would harm beneficiaries by taking private health plan options away from them.
- It would undermine the Medicare prescription drug program.
- It is fiscally irresponsible, and it would imperil the long-term fiscal soundness of Medicare by using short-term budget gimmicks that do not solve the problem.
In addition, H.R. 6331 would delay important reforms like the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies competitive bidding program. Changing policy in mid-stream is also confusing to beneficiaries who are receiving services from quality suppliers at lower prices. In order to slow the growth in Medicare spending, competition within the program should be expanded, not diminished.Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Sen. PATTY MURRAY (D, WA): President Bush vetoed a bill that would make vital improvements to the program that has helped ensure that millions of seniors and the disabled can get the care they need. This bill puts an emphasis on preventive care that will help our seniors stay healthy, and it will help to keep costs down by enabling those patients to get care before they get seriously ill. This bill will improve coverage for low-income seniors who need expert help to afford basic care. It will help make sure our seniors get mental health care. |
Voting YES counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting NO counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
Voting YES counts as answer B on AmericansElect question 3;
Voting NO counts as answer C on AmericansElect question 3. |
Democrats:
YES 219; NO 0
Republicans:
YES 145; NO 40
Independents:
YES 19; NO 1 |
Vote number 08-HR1424 giving mental health full equity with physical health
on Mar 5, 2008
regarding bill H.R.1424 Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act
Results: Bill passed, 268-148 |
CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: - Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008: Requires group health plans to apply the same treatment limits on mental health or substance-related disorder benefits as they do for medical and surgical benefits (parity requirement).
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: Prohibits a group health plan from adjusting premium or contribution amounts for a group on the basis of genetic information.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. PALLONE. This is a comprehensive bill which will establish full mental health and addiction care parity. The Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 authorized for 5 years partial parity by mandating that the annual and lifetime dollar limit for mental health treatment under group health plans offering mental health coverage be no less than that for physical illnesses. This bill requires full parity and also protects against discrimination by diagnosis. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Rep. DEAL of Georgia: I am a supporter of the concept of mental health parity, but this bill before us today is not the correct approach. This path will raise the price of health insurance, and would cause some to lose their health insurance benefits and some employers to terminate mental health benefits altogether. The bill's focus is also overly broad. Our legislation should focus on serious biologically-based mental disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, not on jet lag and caffeine addiction, as this bill would include. There are no criteria for judicial review, required notice and comment, or congressional review of future decisions. I would ask my colleagues to vote "no" today so that we can take up the Senate bill and avoid a possible stalemate in a House-Senate conference on an issue that should be signed into law this Congress. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Bill passed House, 268-148 |
Voting YES counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More federal funding for health coverage;
Voting NO counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 210; NO 3
Republicans:
YES 45; NO 139
Independents:
YES 13; NO 6 |
Vote number 08-HR3963 Veto override: Extend SCHIP to cover 6M more kids
on Jan 23, 2008
regarding bill Veto override on H.R.3963 SCHIP Extension
Results: Veto override failed, 260-152 (2/3rds required) |
OnTheIssues Explanation: This vote is a veto override of the SCHIP extension (State Children's Health Insurance Program). The bill passed the House 265-142 on 10/25/07, and was vetoed by Pres. Bush on 12/12/07. CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: This Act would enroll all 6 million uninsured children who are eligible, but not enrolled, for coverage under existing programs. PRESIDENT'S VETO MESSAGE: Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. My Administration strongly supports reauthorization of SCHIP. [But this bill, even with changes, does not meet the requirements I outlined]. It would still shift SCHIP away from its original purpose by covering adults. It would still include coverage of many individuals with incomes higher than the median income. It would still result in government health care for approximately 2 million children who already have private health care coverage. SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill protects health insurance coverage for some 6 million children who now depend on SCHIP. It provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. Together, this is a total of better than 10 million young Americans who, without this legislation, would not have health insurance. The bill makes changes to accommodate the President's stated concerns. - It terminates the coverage of childless adults in 1 year.
- It prohibits States from covering children in families with incomes above $51,000.
- It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.
- It encourages securing health insurance provided through private employer.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Veto override failed, 260-152 (2/3rds required) |
Voting YES counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More federal funding for health coverage;
Voting NO counts for -2 points on VoteMatch question 5.
Voting YES counts as answer A on AmericansElect question 3;
Voting NO counts as answer C on AmericansElect question 3. |
Democrats:
YES 208; NO 1
Republicans:
YES 41; NO 143
Independents:
YES 11; NO 8 |
Vote number 2007-1009 adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility
on Oct 25, 2007
regarding bill H.R. 3963 Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
Results: Bill Passed, 265-142 |
Allows State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), that require state legislation to meet additional requirements imposed by this Act, additional time to make required plan changes. Pres. Bush vetoed this bill on Dec. 12, 2007, as well as a version (HR976) from Feb. 2007. Proponents support voting YES because: Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from HR976]: - It terminates the coverage of childless adults.
- It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering families with incomes above $51,000.
- It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.
Opponents recommend voting NO because: Rep. DEAL: This bill [fails to] fix the previous legislation that has been vetoed: - On illegal immigration: Would the verification system prevent an illegal alien from fraudulently using another person's name to obtain SCHIP benefits? No.
- On adults in SCHIP: Up to 10% of the enrollees in SCHIP will be adults, not children, in the next 5 years, and money for poor children shouldn't go to cover adults.
- On crowd-out: The CBO still estimates there will be some 2 million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government-run program.
Veto message from President Bush: Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot sign this legislation. |
Voting YES counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More federal funding for health coverage;
Voting NO counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
Voting YES counts as answer B on AmericansElect question 3;
Voting NO counts as answer C on AmericansElect question 3. |
Democrats:
YES 204; NO 1
Republicans:
YES 41; NO 133
Independents:
YES 13; NO 8 |
Vote number 2007-023 requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D
on Jan 12, 2007
regarding bill HR 4 ("First 100 hours") Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act
Results: Bill passed, 255-170 |
Would require negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices that may be charged to prescription drug plan sponsors for covered Medicare part D drugs. Proponents support voting YES because: This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers. It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses. HR4 does not require using the Department of Veterans Affairs' price schedule. Opponents support voting NO because: Does ideological purity trump sound public policy? It shouldn't, but, unfortunately, it appears that ideology would profoundly change the Medicare part D prescription drug program, a program that is working well, a program that has arrived on time and under budget. The changes are not being proposed because of any weakness or defect in the program, but because of ideological opposition to market-based prices. Since the inception of the part D program, America's seniors have had access to greater coverage at a lower cost than at any time under Medicare. Under the guise of negotiation, this bill proposes to enact draconian price controls on pharmaceutical products. Competition has brought significant cost savings to the program. The current system trusts the marketplace, with some guidance, to be the most efficient arbiter of distribution. |
Voting YES counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting NO counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 209; NO 1
Republicans:
YES 23; NO 160
Independents:
YES 14; NO 6 |
Vote number 2006-004 denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay
on Feb 1, 2006
regarding bill H Res 653 on S. AMDT. 2691 Reconciliation resolution on the FY06 budget
Results: Resolution Passed: 216-214 |
Vote to pass a resolution, agreeing to S. AMDT. 2691 that removes the following provisions from S 1932: - Allows hospitals to refuse treatment to Medicaid patients when they are unable to pay their co-pay if the hospital deems the situation to be a non-emergency
- Excludes payment to grandparents for foster care
|
Voting NO counts for 2 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting YES counts for -2 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 1; NO 186
Republicans:
YES 203; NO 13
Independents:
YES 8; NO 12 |
Vote number 2004-166 limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages
on May 12, 2004
regarding bill HR 4280 Medical Malpractice Liability Limitation bill
Results: Bill Passed 229-197: R 214-10; D 15-186 |
Vote to pass a bill that would limit the awards that plaintiffs and their attorneys could be given in medical malpractice cases. The bill would limit non-economic damages, including physical and emotional pain to $250,000. The bill would also limit punitive damages to $250,000 or double economic damages, whichever amount is greater. Punitive damages would be banned against makers and distributors of medical products if the Food and Drug Administration approved those products. The bill would call for all states to set damage caps but would not block existing state statutory limits. The bill would cap attorneys' contingency fees to 40% of the first $50,000 in damages; 33.3% of the next $50,000; 25% of the next $500,000; and 15% of any amount in excess of $600,000. |
(Not used in VoteMatch)
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 15; NO 174
Republicans:
YES 205; NO 10
Independents:
YES 8; NO 11 |
Vote number 2003-669 limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
on Nov 22, 2003
regarding bill HR.1 Bill sponsored by Hastert, R-IL
Results: Conference Report Adopted 220-215 |
Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003: Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would create a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. Starting in 2006, prescription coverage would be made available through private insurers to seniors. Seniors would pay a monthly premium of an estimated $35 in 2006. Individuals enrolled in the plan would cover the first $250 of annual drug costs themselves, and 25 percent of all drug costs up to $2,250. The government would offer a fallback prescription drug plan in regions were no private plans had made a bid.Over a 10 year time period medicare payments to managed care plans would increase by $14.2 billion. A pilot project would begin in 2010 in which Medicare would compete with private insurers to provide coverage for doctors and hospitals costs in six metropolitan areas for six years. The importation of drugs from Canada would be approved only if HHS determines there is no safety risks and that consumers would be saving money. |
Voting NO counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting YES counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 13; NO 178
Republicans:
YES 197; NO 24
Independents:
YES 9; NO 11 |
Vote number 2003-445 allowing reimportation of prescription drugs
on Jul 24, 2003
regarding bill HR.2427 Bill sponsored by Gutknecht, R-MN
Results: Bill Passed 243-186 |
Pharmaceutical Market Access Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill that would call for the Food and Drug Administration to begin a program that would permit the importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from Australia, Canada, the European Union, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and South Africa. |
Voting YES counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting NO counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 144; NO 42
Republicans:
YES 84; NO 136
Independents:
YES 13; NO 7 |
Vote number 2003-296 small business associations for buying health insurance
on Jun 19, 2003
regarding bill HR 660 Small Business Health Fairness Act
Results: Bill passed 262-162: R 226-1; D 36-160 |
Vote to pass a bill that would permit the creation of association health plans through which small companies could group together to buy insurance for their employees. Association health plans that cover employees in several states would be excused from many individual state insurance regulations but would be regulated by the Labor Department. |
(Not used in VoteMatch)
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 32; NO 152
Republicans:
YES 215; NO 2
Independents:
YES 12; NO 8 |
Vote number 2003-64 capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits
on Mar 13, 2003
regarding bill HR 5 Bill sponsored by Greenwood, R-PA
Results: Bill passed 229-196 |
Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003: To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system. Limits the availability of punitive damages, and sets a 3-year limit for suing. |
Voting NO counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting YES counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 15; NO 174
Republicans:
YES 205; NO 10
Independents:
YES 8; NO 11 |
Vote number 2001-329 allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award
on Aug 2, 2001
regarding bill HR 2563
Results: Amendment adopted, 218-213 |
Vote to adopt an amendment that would limit liability and damage awards when a patient is harmed by a denial of health care. It would allow a patient to sue a health maintenance organization in state court but federal, not state, law would govern. |
(Not used in VoteMatch)
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 3; NO 196
Republicans:
YES 205; NO 6
Independents:
YES 7; NO 8 |
Vote number 2000-357 subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage
on Jun 28, 2000
regarding bill HR 4680 Bill sponsored by Thomas, R-CA
Results: Bill passed: FOR: 217; AGAINST: 214 |
HR 4680, the Medicare Rx 2000 Act, would institute a new program to provide voluntary prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries through subsidies to private plans. The program would cost an estimated $40 billion over five years and would go into effect in fiscal 2003. |
Voting NO counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting YES counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 4; NO 193
Republicans:
YES 204; NO 11
Independents:
YES 8; NO 7 |
Vote number 1999-544 banning physician-assisted suicide
on Oct 27, 1999
regarding bill HR 2260 Bill sponsored by Hyde, R-IL
Results: Bill passed: FOR: 271; AGAINST: 156 |
Vote on HR 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, would ban the use of drugs for physician-assisted suicide. The bill would not allow doctors to give lethal prescriptions to terminally ill patients, and instead promotes "palliative care," or aggressive pain relief techniques. |
(Not used in VoteMatch)
(Not used by AmericansElect) |
Democrats:
YES 67; NO 127
Republicans:
YES 196; NO 18
Independents:
YES 7; NO 8 |
Vote number 1999-485 establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts
on Oct 6, 1999
regarding bill HR 2990 Bill sponsored by Talent, R-MO
Results: Bill passed: FOR: 227; AGAINST: 205 |
The bill allows all taxpayers to create a tax-exempt account for paying medical expenses called a Medical Savings Account [MSA]. Also, the measure would allow the full cost of health care premiums to be taken as a tax deduction for the self-employed and taxpayers who are paying for their own insurance. The bill would also allow the establishment of "HealthMarts," regional groups of insurers, health care providers and employers who could work together to develop packages for uninsured employees. Another provision of the bill would establish "association health plan," in which organizations could combine resources to purchase health insurance at better rates than they could separately. |
Voting NO counts for 1 points on VoteMatch question 5:
More Federal Funding for Health Coverage;
Voting YES counts for -1 points on VoteMatch question 5.
Voting YES counts as answer D on AmericansElect question 3;
Voting NO counts as answer A on AmericansElect question 3. |
Democrats:
YES 9; NO 189
Republicans:
YES 209; NO 6
Independents:
YES 8; NO 7 |
Abortion
Budget & Economy