Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[vector7]

From The Times
March 4, 2010
Barack Obama: I'll steamroll health reforms through Congress

Tim Reid, Washington


(Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

President Obama indicated that he could not continue to compromise forever visited President Obama declared for the first time yesterday that he was prepared to steamroller his troubled health reform legislation through Congress with only Democratic support; a move Republicans denounced as the “nuclear option”.

Signalling that his patience had snapped after a year-long fight, Mr Obama laid the ground for Democrats in Congress to muscle the Bill through using a high-risk legislative manoeuvre known as reconciliation, which overrides a Republican filibuster. Although he did not use the word “reconciliation”, Mr Obama made it clear that that was the route he intended to take.

Democrats will, as a result, be able to get the health reform package through the Senate with a simple majority. Mr Obama’s party ceded their 60-stong majority in the upper chamber after losing the late Teddy Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat in January.

That shock defeat was due, in large part, to growing public hostility to Mr Obama’s health reforms, which many see as too expensive at a time of soaring deficits. Ramming the Bill through Congress is, therefore, a high-risk strategy that Republicans vowed to exploit.

In a speech at the White House, Mr Obama acknowledged the risks involved. “I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right,” he said. “The American people are waiting for us to lead. As long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership.”

Mr Obama rejected Republican calls to start drafting new legislation. “For us to start over now could simply lead to delay that could last another decade or even more. I have asked leaders in both houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks.”

The push for a swift end to the bruising battle was carefully choreographed by the White House after Mr Obama’s “bipartisan” healthcare summit with congressional Republicans last week. He used that encounter to place four Republican ideas into his final health reform package. That enabled him to say that he was reaching out to the opposition, at a time when Democrats are, in fact, preparing to shut them out of the process altogether.

Eric Cantor, the No 2 Republican in the House, said: “If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion-dollar healthcare package, it isn’t bipartisanship. It’s political cover.”

Both parties have used reconciliation more than 20 times each since 1980 — but never to pass a piece of legislation as expensive and as sweeping as Mr Obama’s health reforms.

[vector7]

March 08, 2010
Guess Who's Coming to Your House!

By Ken Blackwell

It's all supposed to be voluntary, those "home visits" that are tucked into the mammoth Obamacare bill. If you have a strong stomach, and a stronger bottom, you can find home visitation on pages 568-595. That's Section 2951 of H.R. 3590, the Senate bill that Harry Reid brought down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

All voluntary, they say, but once you "volunteer" to have the oh-so-helpful folks from Social Services come in to help with your newborns, or with a number of other specified issues, will you ever be able to get rid of them?

The bill provides for federal funding and supervision for this vast expansion of government intrusion into family life. This is the Nanny State on steroids.

Is your family being "targeted" for such home visitations? Let's see if you fit into one of these very broad categories:

• Families where Mom is not yet 21. (No mention here whether she is married or not.)
• Families where someone is a tobacco user. (Does this include the White House? Watch out, Sasha and Malia! Does Grandpa, whom you love and have taken in, enjoy his after-dinner pipe?)
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

As if that list were not wide-ranging enough, here's the net that can encompass tens of millions:

• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. [Emphasis added.]

So while Johnny gets his gun, the government steps in to "help" his family at home. Ronald Reagan used to say the most frightening words in the English language were these: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

Who will sit atop the federal pyramid that runs this vast new invasion of family privacy? Why, it will be Sec. of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, of course. She was the most pro-abortion governor in American history when President Obama tapped her for his cabinet.

Do you spank your children? You should know that HHS bureaucrats think you are an abuser.

Do you support the Second Amendment? How would you like HHS bureaucrats asking your children if you maintain firearms in the home for family protection?

Do you home-school your kids? Take care. Members of Congress who have tried to abolish home-schooling are big backers of this health care bill. Do you wonder why?

There are abundant reasons to oppose this health care bill. Conservative leader Gary Bauer cites the colorful words of Oklahoma Democratic Congressman Dan Boren. Mr. Boren is one of the bluest of Blue Dogs. He says: "They can break my arms. They can do whatever they want to. They'll never get my vote -- ever. They'll have to walk across my dead body if they want my vote on this issue." Boren spoke for many concerned Democrats when he said, "there is no chance I am voting for this bill because it raises taxes on businesses, creates job-killing mandates, grows the size of government, and cuts services to seniors."

All of this is true. But the White House is pulling out all the stops. One of their senior advisers told CNN's Gloria Borger what President Obama's people are telling wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill:

BORGER: Right. This isn't going to be subtle at all today. I think this is it. I was speaking with one senior White House adviser just before I came on the air, and he said, think of it this way. This is the last helicopter out of Saigon, OK?

Could anything be more bizarre? A senior member of the administration is comparing the president's signature measure in Congress to the forced evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in South Vietnam in 1975.

Older Americans remember the shame and heartbreak of seeing thousands of America's allies desperately clinging to U.S. Army helicopters as the North Vietnamese army closed in on South Vietnam's capital city.

We don't want to re-fight the Vietnam War, but it should not go without notice that the Democrats also controlled Capitol Hill back in 1975. The Democrats, led by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Minnesota Congressman Don Fraser, had cut off all the promised U.S. funding for the South Vietnamese armed forces that were trying to stave off a brutal Communist takeover of their country. And we're told that we have to pass Obamacare as a tribute to Ted!

Is this the kind of hope and change Mr. Obama's top advisers now want us to embrace? Are his own people thinking of this last-minute push as a debacle? Helicopters in Saigon. What a confused and confusing mess this is!

One thing is clear: For life and liberty, we must defeat ObamaCare. Call your U.S. senators and representatives now (202.224.3121). Tell them to vote NO on Obamacare.

[American Patriot]

Received in email this morning. Haven't checked the details.

Interesting. Doctors even know that this abomination of a Health Care Bill is bad for the country. According to Snopes some of the line items are not correct if referring to the current bill submitted by BO. But the bottom line is the same. And although some of the items may be incorrect by line, the basic concerns are valid.

Doug. . .

________________________________

This letter appeared in the Indianapolis Star (which is owned by the same people who own the Arizona Republic ) and was sent to a very popular Indiana Senator. This just goes to show everyone what pressure these Democrats are currently under, so continue to let them know how you feel about the healthcare bill.

Bill Stough



Shock to NBC This morning.





An Indianapolis doctor's letter to Sen. Bayh about the Bill (Note: Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, MD practices as an anesthesiologist in Indianapolis, IN ) Here is a letter I sent to Senator Bayh.. Feel free to copy it and send it around to all other representatives. -- Stephen Fraser



Senator Bayh,

As a practicing physician I have major concerns with the health care bill before Congress. I actually have read the bill and am shocked by the brazenness of the government's proposed involvement in the patient-physician relationship. The very idea that the government will dictate and ration patient care is dangerous and certainly not helpful in designing a health care system that works for all. Every physician I work with agrees that we need to fix our health care system, but the proposed bills currently making their way through congress will be a disaster if passed.

I ask you respectfully and as a patriotic American to look at the following troubling lines that I have read in the bill. You cannot possibly believe that these proposals are in the best interests of the country and our fellow citizens.

Page 22 of the HC Bill: Mandates that the Govt will audit books of all employers that self-insure!!

Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill: THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Page 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill: YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 42 of HC Bill: The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC benefits for you. You have no choice!

Page 50 Section 152 in HC bill: HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.

Page 58 HC Bill: Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a 'National ID Health card' will be issued! (Papers please!)

Page 59 HC Bill lines 21-24: Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer. (Time for more cash and carry)

Page 65 Sec 164: Is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations: (ACORN).

Page 84 Sec 203 HC bill: Govt mandates ALL benefit packages for private HC plans in the 'Exchange.'

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans -- The Govt will ration your health care!

Page 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill: Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services. (Translation: illegal aliens.)

Page 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18: The Govt will use groups (i.e. ACORN & Americorps to sign up individuals for Govt HC plan.

Page 85 Line 7 HC Bill: Specifications of Benefit Levels for Plans. (AARP members - your health care WILL be rationed!) Page 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill: Medicaid eligible individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. (No choice.)

Page 12 4 lines 24-25 HC: No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt monopoly.

Page 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill: Doctors/ American Medical Association - The Govt will tell YOU what salary you can make.

Page 145 Line 15-17: An Employer MUST auto-enroll employees into public option plan. (NO choice!)

Page 126 Lines 22-25: Employers MUST pay for HC for part-time employees AND their families. (Employees shouldn't get excited about this as employers will be forced to reduce its work force, benefits, and wages/salaries to cover such a huge expense.)

Page 149 Lines 16-24: ANY Employer with payroll 401k & above who does not provide public option will pay 8% tax on all payroll! (See the last comment in parenthesis.) Page 150 Lines 9-13: A business with payroll between $251K & $401K who doesn't provide public option will pay 2-6% tax on all payroll.

Page 167 Lines 18-23: ANY individual who doesn't have acceptable HC according to Govt will be taxed 2.5% of income.

Page 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill: Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.) (Like always)

Page 195 HC Bill: Officers & employees of the GOVT HC Admin.. will have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records. (I guess so they can 'deduct' their fees)

Page 203 Line 14-15 HC: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." (Yes, it really says that!) ( a 'fee' instead)
Page 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill: Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid Seniors. (Low-income and the poor are affected.)

Page 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill: Doctors: It doesn't matter what specialty you have trained yourself in -- you will all be paid the same! (Just TRY to tell me that's not Socialism!)

Page 253 Line 10-18: The Govt sets the value of a doctor's time, profession, judgment, etc. (Literally-- the value of humans.)

Page 265 Sec 1131: The Govt mandates and controls productivity for "private" HC industries.

Page 268 Sec 1141: The federal Govt regulates the rental and purchase of power driven wheelchairs.

Page 272 SEC. 1145: TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

Page 280 Sec 1151: The Govt will penalize hospitals for whatever the Govt deems preventable (i.e...re-admissions).

Page 298 Lines 9-11: Doctors: If you treat a patient during initial admission that results in a re-admission -- the Govt will penalize you.

Page 317 L 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. (The Govt tells doctors what and how much they can own!)

Page 317-318 lines 21-25, 1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion. (The Govt is mandating that hospitals cannot expand.)
Page 321 2-13: Hospitals have the opportunity to apply for exception BUT community input is required. (Can you say ACORN?)

Page 335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339: The Govt mandates establishment of=2 outcome-based measures. (HC the way they want -- rationing.)
Page 341 Lines 3-9: The Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Advance Plans, HMOs, etc. (Forcing people into the Govt plan)

Page 354 Sec 1177: The Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of 'special needs people!' Unbelievable!

Page 379 Sec 1191: The Govt creates more bureaucracy via a "Tele-Health Advisory Committee." (Can you say HC by phone?)

Page 425 Lines 4-12: The Govt mandates "Advance-Care Planning Consult." (Think senior citizens end-of-life patients.)

Page 425 Lines 17-19: The Govt will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. (And it's mandatory!) Page 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3: The Govt provides an "approved" list of end-of-life resources; guiding you in death. (Also called 'assisted suicide.')(Sounds like Soylent Green to me.)

Page 427 Lines 15-24: The Govt mandates a program for orders on "end-of-life." (The Govt has a say in how your life ends!)

Page 429 Lines 1-9: An "advanced-care planning consultant" will be used frequently as a patient's health deteriorates.

Page 429 Lines 10-12: An "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans.. (AN ORDER TO DIE FROM THE GOVERNMENT?!?)

Page 429 Lines 13-25: The GOVT will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.. (I wouldn't want to stand before God after getting paid for THAT job!)

Page 430 Lines 11-15: The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end-of-life! (Again -- no choice!)

Page 469: Community-Based Home Medical Services = Non-Profit Organizations. (Hello? ACORN Medical Services here!?!)

Page 489 Sec 1308: The Govt will cover marriage and family therapy. (Which means Govt will insert itself into your marriage even.)

Page 494-498: Govt will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, and rationing those services.

Senator, I guarantee that I personally will do everything possible to inform patients and my fellow physicians about the dangers of the proposed bills you and your colleagues are debating.

Furthermore, if you vote for a bill that enforces socialized medicine on the country and destroys the doctor-patient relationship, I will do everything in my power to make sure you lose your job in the next election.

Respectfully,

Stephen E. Fraser, MD

Dear Reader,

I urge you to use the power that you were born with (and the power that may soon be taken away) and circulate this email to as many people as you can reach. The Power of the People can stop this from happening to us, our parents, our grandparents, our children, and to following generations

[vector7]

Obama launches attack on health insurance companies

By Amy Goldstein and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 9, 2010; A01



The White House is mounting a stinging, sustained broadside against health insurance rate increases as President Obama and his aides enter what they hope will be the final stretch of a year-long political war over health-care reform.

Obama and his health secretary staged a two-pronged attack Monday in a stern letter to health insurance chief executives and a speech in which the president castigated insurance companies 22 times. "How much higher do premiums have to rise," he demanded, "before we do something about it?"

The messages are part of a strategy that Obama and those around him have begun to employ lately, to ratchet up the pace and the populist appeal of their rhetoric against the health insurance industry. The barbed tone moves far beyond that of the 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama began to say that medical coverage should be accessible and affordable for more Americans.

It remains unclear whether the strategy, coming this late in the debate, will mobilize support among the public and on Capitol Hill for the legislation that the White House and congressional Democrats favor.

Obama has asked Congress to conduct final votes on the proposal within 10 days, before lawmakers leave for a two-week break. Democratic congressional leaders, especially those in the House, are struggling to secure enough votes within their party; Republicans are calling for the proposal to be abandoned, saying that most Americans oppose it.

The near-daily demonization of the insurance industry is an attempt by the White House to play to Americans' anxieties about the health-care system -- and about the prospect of changing it.

Polls consistently show that most people fear that the legislation would make their treatment more expensive. By focusing on escalating insurance rates, especially for the sliver of the market in which people buy health coverage individually, the administration is emphasizing that costs will increase if Congress does not act.

"Part of the motivating factor here is letting members of Congress know there's a price to pay for failure," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday in an interview. "And for the public, it's important to remind them that there are premium increases of 40 percent for as far as you can see if nothing is done."

Emanuel's figure referred to a recent move by Anthem Blue Cross of California to raise premiums by 39 percent for people who buy individual policies.

As the White House has launched its last-minute public relations blitz, "there could have been no greater gift" than Anthem's proposed rate increase, said Drew E. Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy and research organization. The Obama administration, Altman said, is "trying to connect better with average people" in terms more concrete than the president used earlier in the debate when he spoke about "bending the curve" of escalating health-care costs and curbing future budget deficits.

Republicans doubt that the rhetoric will work. Linda DiVall, a GOP strategist, said White House officials "are trying to disguise their vulnerability" that the Democrats' approach would not control costs "by hiding behind a greater villain" -- insurance firms.

Last year, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose by an average of 5 percent, while overall prices fell nearly 1 percent, according to Kaiser. Over the previous decade, premiums went up by 131 percent, compared with 28 percent for inflation. The administration contends that the rate increases reflect excessive profits; insurance lobbyists counter that their rates simply mirror underlying increases in prices charged by doctors, hospitals and drug firms.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's main lobby, plans to spend more than $1 million on a nationwide advertising campaign this week to, as one official with the group said, "set the record straight about rising health-care costs."

Americans' attitudes toward health insurance are complex. Broad majorities of insured people say they are satisfied with their coverage, according to Washington Post-ABC News polls. Only one in eight say insurance would improve if the health-care system were changed.

But that relative satisfaction coexists with anxiety. More detailed Kaiser surveys show that two-thirds of insured people say they worry that their insurance or their care will become more expensive -- and nearly half say they have delayed or skipped care because of the cost.
Robert J. Blendon, a Harvard professor who specializes in public opinion on health care, said it may be difficult for the White House to shift Americans' views about reform, with polls showing they have been relatively static since early fall. Still, he said, the administration has reason to focus on insurance rates, because "the president ran saying, 'I am going to lower your costs,' and most people don't believe there is anything in the bill at the moment that would make that happen." In particular, Blendon said, Obama is trying to overcome that perception by proposing a new Health Insurance Rate Authority.

That proposal, however, has encountered skepticism among state insurance commissioners, who regulate the industry. "I do kind of recoil at the word 'authority,' " said Sandy Praeger, chairman of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' health-care committee and insurance commissioner for Kansas. She said she favors nationwide minimum standards for regulating insurers. But, she said, "I don't know why they need a separate board," adding that she fears that such an authority could lead to federal powers to override state decisions about insurance rates.

Already, 28 states require health insurers to get commissioner approval for rate increases in the small, expensive individual insurance market, and a dozen require companies to file notices of planned increases. Praeger said there is a risk that, if the federal government blocked premium increases that insurers needed to remain solvent, some companies could be unable to pay claims.

Through the increasing din, insurers have been using their own megaphone to try to counteract the White House's messages, saying they are being vilified.

"All health plans are in the same situation in trying to deal with the steadily increasing medical costs in the delivery system, which are not sustainable," an Anthem spokeswoman said last month when the firm agreed to a request by California regulators to postpone its rate increase. Like other insurers, Anthem also said rates are going up for individual insurance because, in the poor economy, healthy people are dropping coverage, leaving a pool of customers who are sicker and more expensive to cover.

A few constituencies are seizing on the administration's heated rhetoric. As many as 5,000 activists, organized by Health Care for America Now, a coalition of labor and other liberal groups, are planning to amass in Washington on Tuesday to stage a "Stop Big Insurance" rally outside a policy forum that America's Health Insurance Plans is sponsoring.

On Monday morning, before she joined Obama on Air Force One for his speech in suburban Philadelphia, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote to the chief executives of five large insurers she had summoned to the White House last week. Calling the insurance system "broken," her letter urged the companies to post on their Web sites a 10-point explanation of price increases and their impact.

At Arcadia University in Glenside, Pa., on Monday, Obama propelled the message further, citing a recent conference call convened by Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research in which, the president said, an insurance broker said there was so little competition among health insurers that it was worth it for companies to raise premiums, even if they lost customers as a result. He said: We "allow the insurance industry to run wild in the country."

Staff writers Dan Eggen and Michael D. Shear and polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

[vector7]

Pelosi: We need to pass ObamaCare so that the public can find out what’s in the bill

posted at 4:13 pm on March 9, 2010 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly



No foolin’. It has, my friends, come to this.

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

This is a nifty illustration of why Pelosi, and not The One, will play the role of boogeyman in GOP attack ads this fall. Accusing the public of being too ignorant to grasp the genius of an unpopular liberal program is what a rank-and-file lefty would do; using that alleged ignorance as a reason not to slow down on the legislation but to ram it through is the mark of an arrogant, power-hungry, sneering full-blown liberal cartoon. What she’s arguing here, put simply, is that the left has a mandate because you’re too goshdamned stupid to understand what’s going on. Well done, Madam Speaker. You’re parody-proof.

Speaking of arrogance, here’s the latest dubious jury-rigged contraption they’re designing to try to get Stupak and his pro-life bloc to vote for Reid’s bill:

Party leaders have discussed the possibility of using the House Rules Committee to avoid an actual vote on the Senate’s bill, according to leadership aides. They would do this by writing what’s called a “self-executing rule,” meaning the Senate bill would be attached to a package of fixes being negotiated between the two chambers — without an actual vote on the Senate’s legislation.

Under this scenario, the Senate bill would be automatically attached to the reconciliation package, if the House passes reconciliation. In other words, Bill A would just become part of Bill B if the House passes Bill B, and the Senate could then vote on a reconciliation package before sending it to the president. This allows House members to approve the broader measure without actually voting on it.

In other words, instead of having the House pass the Senate bill and then Obama signing it into law, with only Reid’s promise as an assurance that reconciliation will follow, they’re going to try to essentially merge the Senate bill with the reconciliation “fix” in the House first. Then Reid would have no choice but to pass the reconciliation “fix” in the Senate so that there would be a single identical bill passed by both chambers that Obama could sign. The obvious question: Why doesn’t the House just pass a new bill that incorporates the Senate bill and the reconciliation fix instead of this “Bill A” and “Bill B” crap? Answer: Because reconciliation only works for budgetary provisions, and most of the provisions of a giant new bill would be non-budgetary. They’d need 60 votes to re-pass it, not 50. (Although with Slow Joe ready to nuke the GOP’s opposition by any means necessary, you never know.) This whole headache could be avoided, of course, if Blue Dog Dems had an iota of confidence that Reid and Obama would keep their promise to pass a fix once the Senate bill passed the House, but they don’t. Every last bit of this excruciating procedural negotiation at this point stems from the fact that Democrats don’t trust other Democrats. Remember that.

Perhaps there’s a simpler way:

In reading the excellent article by Timothy Noah, the solution for the Stupak issue becomes obvious. Stupak’s main concern is that the Hyde language fully extends to the subsidized policies available in the exchanges. However, the Hyde language is not permanent law – it is an amendment in the HHS appropriations bill that expires every fiscal year. That is the basic challenge – Stupak wants to make a permanent law that mimics a temporary law that is annually renewed during an annual appropriations process.

The solution is to get the Appropriations Committee to promise to include language extending Hyde to the exchanges as part of the HHS Appropriations bill later this year. It will be part of the bill (just like the current Hyde language), and while it can be taken out of the bill by amendment on the floor, there are not the votes to do that. If there is an amendment to repeal the Hyde language on the House Floor this summer, Stupak will probably welcome that. Stupak and all his supporters will have their unambiguous vote against abortion coverage in HCR, and they will win. Pro-choice voters will be disappointed in the HHS fight, but there will be no reason to vote against HCR now. Stupak will get his language exactly the way the Hyde language exists now, and we will all get HCR. It is a win-win for everyone.

Yes, win-win for everyone — assuming Stupak trusts Pelosi and Reid to include that amendment in the appropriations bill. Does he? If so … why?

Update: If you’re looking for tea leaves on the numbers, Harkin says they’ll be done with this by March 27 (although Hoyer sounds less sure) and betting on InTrade that they’re going to pass something has suddenly spiked inside the D.C. area. Maybe a surge of confidence in light of Stupak’s newfound optimism? Could be, but that confidence might be misplaced: A reader reminded me last night that Stupak was sounding optimistic a few days ago too, and yet here we are, still with no movement in the House.

[vector7]

House Democrats looking at 'Slaughter Solution' to pass Obamacare without a vote on Senate bill

By: Mark Tapscott



Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill?

Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal's Congress Daily:

"House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

"Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said."

Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Would that rationale fly with the public? Is it logical? Of course not. But remember, these folks have persuaded themselves that a majority of the American people really want Obamacare. A blog post on House Minority Leader John Boehner's blog described the approach as a "twisted scheme."

How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc.

UPDATE: Turner on Nancy's new rules

Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute offers another insight into the Democrats' desperate search for some way to pass a proposal that is clearly opposed by a majority of their constituents.

So now Democratic leaders say they'll package a two-for-one vote: Moving the original Senate bill simultaneously with a "reconciliation" bill -- thus, if the House votes for the bill of fixes, the main Senate bill will be deemed to also have passed. Then the reconciliation bill will go back to the Senate, where it only needs 50 votes (plus Vice President Joe Biden's) to pass.

Hmm. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that Congress can deem a bill to have passed. Pelosi & Co. aren't just making up policy as they go, but also procedure -- possibly unconstitutional procedure, at that. All to enact a bill remaking a sixth of the US economy over the 3-1 opposition of the American people.

[vector7]

Here it comes...

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

[Aplomb]

http://www.redstate.com/e_pluribus_u...laughter-rule/

If you try the Slaughter Rule, you will lose the country. Not in November. In March.
Didn't like August? You'll hate this entire year.
Posted by E Pluribus Unum (Profile)
Friday, March 12th at 9:05AM EST
141 Comments
Recommenders: qixlqatl, marshmom, Aaron Gardner, Achance, makemyday, Xasteius, penguin2, Chemical Sam, pilgrim, conservative_faction, kyoufuu, tcgeol, Viet71 , streetwise, SusanAnne Hiller, nessa, Obis_Sister, Socrates, redneck_hippie, Erick Brockway, texasgalt, flicka47 , Vassar Bushmills, techsan, RealQuiet , ladyimpactohio, eastbaylarry, Lori Ziganto, Vegas_Rick, izoneguy, larueladue, GJ Merits, Mary Beth, JadedByPolitics, renny, Scope, SE-779, discerningconservative, RoguePolitics, Beaglescout, Darin_H, Repair_Man_Jack, ddstrain, DONTREADONME, Richard Mullins, abeldred, mailloux, jonreagan, Mike gamecock DeVine, Flagstaff, shadowtax , Finrod, exidore, Lords86, mriggio, janis, thetexan, gekster, Brian Hibbert, mschmitt, Castor , rsjt, djemi, Hooah_Mac, ColdWarrior, 6eorge Jetson, skully, chbroussard, fpete13527, rvail136, rbiii, rightklik, ocleverone, crux, AndrewHyman, LDahl752 , yoyo, shelbysbest, breeanneh, LaborUnionReport, Sundayjack , avgjo, tamparep, BlueStateSaint, romans12n2, PostalMed, mschuh, stillwaters, Section9

What we have here is a failure to communicate. At no time in American history has the ruling party so insistently striven to impose its iron will on such a loudly unwilling citizenry. They are not listening, and they will stop at nothing.

When flim-flammery fails, try intimidation.
When intimidation fails, try chicanery.
When chicanery fails, try illegal.
And when illegal fails, try unconstitutional.

Let’s recap the last year of the Democrats’ Health Care Takeover adventure. Why? Because it was fun, and we won:

With 60% majorities in both House and Senate, and flush from victories on Porkulus and Cap-and-Trade, Obama and the media tried selling America on their signature issue - government health care takeover — with glib lies, fuzzy math, and blaming ‘evil’ insurance companies.

FAIL – it smelled like a government takeover.

They shut Republicans and their ideas out of all discussions, in order to shut down dissent.

FAIL – America noticed, and so came the August recess fiasco. So also came 99.54% party discipline, as only Joe Cao (from a hyper-blue district) voted with the Democrats, to date.

They skipped, dodged, and staged astroturfed townhalls.

FAIL – Twitter. Internet. Americans found and crashed the meetings anyway.

They sent their SIEU and ACORN thugs to intimidate ordinary outraged Americans.

FAIL – People took their beatings. And brought video cameras.

Obama and the media decided they had not made themselves clear. So, more speeches, ABC specials, and more blaming of insurance companies. And doctors.

FAIL – America actually HAD heard it right the first time. and polls really started to look nasty.

They accused Republicans of just being obstructionists, having no alternative plans themselves.

FAIL — Republicans were obstructing with the blessing of their constituents, and their always existing plans sounded a whole lot like cost-lowering free-market ideas. [correction, h/t Jeff Emanuel - Repubs lacked numbers to actually obstruct anything, which the press unerringly failed to ever point out]

Their own members began to revolt, so they were bribed and blackmailed

FAIL – Americans reacted very badly to the Chicago way.

They passed the Senate version on Dec 24 while America traveled and thought of loved ones.

At this point they really thought they had won this thing. Unfortunately for them, Americans are not like Russians, programmed to serve silently and cower in fear of their government.

It was just getting interesting.

FAIL – America noticed anyway. McDonnell and Christie smoked VA and NJ governor elections. Scott Brown campaigned as “Mister 41″, and easily won the “Do it for Teddy” seat in deep-blue MA.

They plotted to delay the seating of Scott Brown in order to get a bill passed.

FAIL – once that was made public, they denied they would have considered such a dastardly thing.

With America dead set against it……more speeches. And publicly dressing down the Supreme Court.

FAIL – again, America already got the message, polls sunk even further, and wobbling Democrats were catching bloody hell from their constituents.

With 60 out of the question and 216 shaky at best, they decided to break congressional rules and jam the bill through by “reconciliation”.

FAIL – the shaky 216 started to look more like 200.

With no more hopes of even passing the House, now they propose the Slaughter Rule — to declare the Senate bill passed without a vote.

FAIL – just wait and see.

Now we’re up to date. Let us look at the United States Constitution, which even Democrats will grudgingly acknowledge as the supreme law of the land (h/t Dan Perrin and Leon Wolf), the over-arching, indisputable law of the land (bolding mine, and Leon’s):

Article 1, Section 7excerpt)
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

In short, two quick and extremely easy points.

The same bill has to pass both House and Senate. The exact bill, word for word.
It passes by vote.
Which brings us to the Slaughter Rule, in which Democrats just flat-out defy the Constitution and declare a bill “passed” which has not been voted on. It’s been discussed at length here, here, and here, by constitutional scholars, veteran congressional experts, and other VSGs (very smart guys). Here’s the EPU’s Notes version:

Unable to pass the Senate bill in the House, unable to pass ANY bill in the Senate (thank you Massachusetts), and thwarted in their attempt at reconciliation parlor tricks, the Democrats have hatched a plan. The House will vote on and (presumably) pass a new bill, which is the Senate Bill with amendments. Call it House Bill #2. House Rules Chairman Louise Slaughter will propose a rule deeming the Senate bill to be “passed”, the new rule will be voted on and (presumably) approved by the House, and the amended bill — House Bill #2 — will be sent to Obama to be signed into law.

Yes, that was the short version.

Now, let’s talk about consequences.
The American public was at first peeved about this government power grab, leading to wildly entertaining August recesses for congressional Democrats. As the Dems shoved non-matching bills through House and Senate, America got positively miffed. Witness McDonnell, Christie, and Brown.

Now America is flat irritated. And if the Dems try sporting this blatant middle finger at the Constitution and America, we will all see what happens when America is finally angry. Like Dan Perrin, I think Democrats will back down before doing this. But we’ve both underestimated their stupidity several times in this process. Nothing’s a safe bet anymore.

Before this, Democrats were already going to lose HUGE in November. There are more House Democrats retiring in “safe” districts than there are Cincinnati Bengals and Dallas Cowboys in prison. But if they try this stunt, the ensuing electoral revolt will be epic and irreversible, resulting in a Democrat Party crippled so irredeemably that I predict a new center-left party will emerge in the next 10 years, attempting to shed the stench of scandal and disrepute that will be permanently connected to the Democrats. Most likely the partisan press will accelerate their own death spiral as they are unwilling to speak ill of the Democrats.

But that is November. What will happen in March?

Six things I can think of, the first three within days. I couldn’t say what order, because things will move pretty quickly. So I list them how my mind sorts them.

1. The Supreme Court will strike it down within days.
I don’t remember which of the 3 authors I cited said this (or maybe I heard it on the radio), so I don’t know who to cite. But every American has standing here, due to the exceedingly far reach of the Health Care Takeover bill. Somebody will sue. I predict GOP members of Congress will, and it will go straight to the Supreme Court. They will strike down the whole caboodle, and they will do it almost immediately. Probably 6-3, with Breyer and Kennedy voting with the originalists. Their ruling is very likely to include language extremely damning of the behavior of Democrats.

2. Numerous states will declare statutorily under the 10th Amendment that this law will be unenforceable within their borders.
I’m guessing 20 states. The move has been afoot for awhile anyway, and this blatant flouting of the Constitution will trigger the America-loving, freedom-loving instincts into bold (if rash) action. And while they’re at it, they’re going to say the same thing about everything emanating from the EPA.

3. There will be public anti-government outrage so great that it will boil into violence.
I do not condone this; it will be ugly and more than a little scary. Lest I give anybody fresh ideas, I will not expound upon it other than to say it will be directed, not generalized — directed at objects, property, and symbols of government, not at people. Although those who voted for this Slaughter Rule would be wise to perhaps hang around in Washington for awhile.

4. (Even more) new candidates opposing incumbent Democrats will come out of the woodwork.
Many already have, but many good ones have considered, then declined. Many of those will change their minds, even in blue states. And new ones will pop up like dandelions. And a whole bunch of them will win. The leftist partisan national media currently think Republicans might, juuuuuuuust MIGHT, get 40 seats and the House back. Idiots. It was already going to be 80 and 8. But after this stunt, it might be 120 and 14. This is what happens when the entire center turns on a party.

5. State AGs will bring charges against sitting Congressmen for whatever they can plausibly pin on them.
Sedition is the actual crime (IMHO), and that’s a federal charge. But no USA will touch this, since they work for the president. Because members of Congress cannot be recalled, citizens will be thirsting for vengeance. Very loudly. State AG’s will be chomping at the bits to exact SOME form of payback, encouraged (or pushed) by their citizenry. Things like corruption, conspiracy, bribery, racketeering, tax fraud, and so on, will be easy indictments. As the last few months have shown, congressional Democrats have been so thoroughly corrupt for so long, nobody will even have to trump up anything.

6. Republicans will shut down business in Congress until January 5.
Then it will REALLY get fun.

Democrats will lose the country days after they pull the Slaughter Rule. They’ll have their illegal law both flouted and overruled, their members will be subject to investigations and indictments, and not a single item of interest will be signed into law, nor will any appointment be approved, before January 5, when a hundred or more of them leave Washington for good.

[American Patriot]

And the question is this.

How many of you have actually taken the time in the last week to write, call or otherwise contact every Congressman and Senator in your districts and continue to tell them NO NO NO.

What part of NO are they not understanding yet?

I sent both Senators and my local Congressman letters on Friday. (Email)

I have received no responses. I called.

I got helpers who told me "Congressman/Senator" so-and-so "thanks you for your call."

Nothing more. I couldn't even get a "How will they vote" answer.

Michael Bennett is a maggot and so are most of his workers. If the man wasn't quitting he'd be removed from office this fall anyway. He knows it, and is quitting.

[American Patriot]

Here it comes...

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

By the way, I want you ALL to see this, in highlights.... in connection to the link above. Is that because Vector mistyped it in, or is it because it is now REMOVED?

Hmmmmm


Not Found

The requested URL /vb/Obama Strategic Health Insurance Team was not found on this server.


Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

---

Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.transasianaxis.com Port 80

[Aplomb]

I just heard on Fox News that the lines are jammed but I just called w/o any problems to Mark Udall's office, so if people go here http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm and put their state into the box, they can call right NOW, unless they have their phone off the hook. Thank you!

[Aplomb]

Here's another link so house and senate can be reached: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[vector7]

Try this:

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

[vector7]

Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats

Barack Obama has said he will not campaign for any Democratic congressmen who fails to support health care reform.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 6:44PM GMT 15 Mar 2010
Comments 70 | Comment on this article


Barack Obama is battling to save US health care reform Photo: EPA

The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill.

A one-night presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.

Mr Obama's threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.

Mr Obama is personally telephoning congressmen who are still on the fence this week, in between several personal appearances devoted toward swinging public opinion.

Yesterday he visited Strongsville, Ohio, home of cancer patient Natoma Canfield, who wrote to the president she gave up her health insurance after it rose to $8,500 (£5,600) a year. Mr Obama repeatedly has cited the letter he received from the self-employed cleaning worker to illustrate the urgency of reform.

Though Congress has already ignored several deadlines set by the president, March 21 is being treated by all sides the final target date, at which time all options would have been exhausted. The president has postponed an overseas trip by three days to see reform through.
Apart from arm-twisting by the White House, an advertising blitz that could cost £20 million by the end of the week, about the same level of a presidential campaign, has been aimed at about 40 undecided Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Most are conservatives who are worried that their support would cost them their seat in November, as the bill has become unpopular with a majority of Americans.

Others are anti-abortion advocates concerned that the proposals would not do enough to prevent government funding of abortions.

The US Chamber of Commerce has led a coalition of organisations opposed to reform, while pharmaceutical companies and Left-wing groups have joined forces to support reform and are urging constituents to contact their representatives and let them know their feelings.
David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, said that "the lobbyists for the insurance industry have landed on Capitol Hill like locusts, and they are going to be doing everything they can in the next week to try and muscle people into voting".

The bill would extend health coverage to about 30 million uninsured Americans and would bar insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing health problems.

The plan to get it through Congress is so complicated that even experts on legislative process disagree about how it could proceed exactly.
The most likely path to reform is that the House Democrats would pass a Senate version of reform passed on Christmas Eve.

Mr Obama would sign the bill into law before leaving for Asia on March 21, and then both chambers would pass "fixes" to the legislation demanded by the House Democrats.

The rest would, as things stand, be something of a formality. By a process known as "reconciliation," Democrats would frustrate Republican filibuster obstruction tactics in the Senate and allow the health care overhaul to be finalised before Congress takes a two-week break on March 26.

The Democrats have been forced to unorthodox tactics after losing their filibuster-proof majority of 60 in the Senate in a Massachusetts by-election.

[vector7]

FoxNewsChannel
March 16, 2010

Explaining 'Deem and Pass'

Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:57 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...6/2229330.aspx

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro and Ken Strickland
There have been lots of stories today on the latest legislative tactic Democratic leaders are considering using to try and pass the Senate health-care bill through the House.

This has a variety of names, including its technical one -- the "Self-Executing Rule," the more colloquial "Deem and Pass," or by what Republicans are calling "The Slaughter Rule." (This is named after New York Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee.)

Some stories have implied that there would not be a vote. For example, the Washington Post had this headline today: "House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it."

This is true in the sense that there would not be a DIRECT vote. But the health-care bill would be voted on INDIRECTLY, tucked into what's known as "the rule." The rule essentially outlines the rules for an upcoming vote -- in this case, it would be the vote on the package of reconciliation fixes.

By passing "the rule," the House also would "deem" the Senate bill passed (with a "hereby" statement. "We hereby deem..."). The House would then vote on the package of reconciliation fixes. But the Senate health-care bill would be considered passed even if they never vote on the reconciliation fixes.

The "rule" can be written several different ways to include passage of the Senate bill. Though no decisions have been made -- including whether or not the rule will be used -- there are two scenarios most often discussed, according to a Democratic aide knee-deep in the process.

Scenario No. 1: The Senate bill is deemed passed with the passage of the House Rule for debate. So once the House passed the rules for debating the reconciliation package, the Senate bill could immediately be sent to president for his signature.

Scenario No. 2: The Senate bill is deemed passed with the House's passage of the reconciliation bill. Since the vote on "the rule" happens before the vote on reconciliation, this would delay the bill being sent to Obama.

Under any scenario, the aide says, the bill must be signed by the president before the Senate takes up the reconciliation.

What's the advantage for Democrats?
Why are Democrats considering this even though there will still be a roll-call vote?

There are a number of House Democrats -- either vulnerable in their reelection bids or who don't like the Senate bill -- who want to avoid a DIRECT vote on the health reform bill. They feel this indirect vote -- even though it includes the health-care bill -- gives them a measure of cover politically.

A little history
"Deem and Pass" has been used often and by both parties. Democrats point out that Republicans used it quite a bit in the 1990s, in fact -- though not for something quite as large as this.

In this Congress, Democrats used "Deem and Pass" for raising the debt ceiling, which was tucked into the PayGo bill.

[Backstop]

They're gonna try every trick in the book to make this a law.

[Toad]

I hate to say it. But I'd lay money down it's going to pass.

I sent out emails to my representatives. Called in to hear the busy signals. Sent 3x snail mails. Wrote a letter to my local newspaper Editor.

[Ryan Ruck]

And the question is this.

How many of you have actually taken the time in the last week to write, call or otherwise contact every Congressman and Senator in your districts and continue to tell them NO NO NO.

What part of NO are they not understanding yet?

I sent both Senators and my local Congressman letters on Friday. (Email)

I have received no responses. I called.

I got helpers who told me "Congressman/Senator" so-and-so "thanks you for your call."

Nothing more. I couldn't even get a "How will they vote" answer.

Michael Bennett is a maggot and so are most of his workers. If the man wasn't quitting he'd be removed from office this fall anyway. He knows it, and is quitting.

I would have but then the cynical side of me took over and told me I'd be wasting my time.

So I spent my time doing something I felt was more useful... Loading my new magazines I bought and putting the finishing touches on my plate carrier setup!

[vector7]

O'Reilly Warns Obama: 'All Hell Will Break Loose If You Backdoor This'

[Backstop]

I wonder exactly what Bill meant when he was talking about not getting an up or down vote, and said, "the end of the Obama administration."

Wonder if he just meant Barry O.'s popularity would plummet, or Barry O. would never get any support ever from the House and/or Senate, etc.

And for the record, I don't believe he was refering to violence, I most certainly am not refering to violence, etc.