ObamaCare: All Bets Are Off. . .

By now you’ve all heard that Sen. Ben Nelson did what we all thought he would, he gave up his principles in exchange for a few favors for his constituents. . . the nation’s insurers. This means the rump-Baucus bill will pass the Senate. What does this mean? What happens next? Read on. . .

1. You’ve been tricked by your Senators.

The first thing to realize (and I hope the lousy people of Nebraska and Louisiana and the Democratic parts of Florida are listening) is that the Baucus bill and all of your ill-gotten gains and privileges are now likely worthless. Your Senators have played you for suckers.

How can I say this? Because there are at least 51 Senators who will vote for the final product even if it includes a nuclear strike on your home state. That means the Senate is now irrelevant. . . it will pass whatever comes out of the conference committee, no matter how much your Senator whines that it’s not fair.

The future of your special favors now rests in the hands of the liberal Democrats in the House. That means a likely return of the public option -- and Joe Lieberman can do nothing about it. That also means they can strip out the benefits for which Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Bill Nelson all sold their souls. That means they can ram through funding for abortion, coverage for illegal aliens, and taxes on you and yours. . . and there’s not a damn thing your Senator can do about it.

But they knew that. So when your Senate creature comes back to its home state on bended knee and it tells you through crocodile-tear-stained eyes that it thought it had a deal in place to protect you. . . don’t believe it. It’s lying.

2. What happens next?

What happens next is the bill goes to the conference committee made up of a group of Senators and a group of Representatives appointed by each chamber. They will argue over the final shape of the bill. They usually cannot add anything not already included in either the House or the Senate version (though this can be waived), but that’s not really relevant in this instance as the two bills together already cover everything the liberals in either chamber want.

In other words, even though the Senate stripped out the public option, the House included one. . . thus, the conference committee can put it back into the final bill, and Joe Lieberman can whine about being misled by Harry Reid.

3. Will the final bill pass?

Probably, but we’ll have to wait and see what format the bill ultimately takes. As I said above, don’t expect the Senate to do anything at this point except become a rubber stamp for the House. But the House hasn’t solved its own problems yet. The abortion people are furious on either side and finding a compromise that reconciles their polar opposite positions will be difficult. The immigrant groups are furious about the exclusion of illegal aliens. There is still anger, in both directions, about the inclusion/exclusion of the public option.

And the real winners right now are the insurance companies, which will upset House liberals to no end. Indeed, right now, insurers not only gained freedom from state regulation through this OPM plan, but 30 million more people will be forced to buy their products. Thank you Santa . . . or is it Satan?

In any event, this will be difficult to pass through the House. The House voted 220-215 to pass the bill originally. A loss of three additional votes would kill the bill. With Democrats talking openly about being willing to lose 20-40 seats to get this done, one has to wonder if more “moderate” Democrats won’t decide that their futures lie in opposing this bill? We’ll have to wait and see. . . just how suicidal are these Democrats?

4. What should the Republicans do now?

The Republicans have actually fought an extremely good fight on this. They deserve a ton of credit -- and let me add, the blame for not stopping this lies with the voters who thought they could trust the Democrats with a super-majority.

But now the game is changing. Any Republican who wants to lead the party in the future better start working language into their appearances about repealing this monster. That should become the leading issue in 2010 and 2012.

"Save HealthCare, Repeal PelosiCare"

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Fear and Loathing In D.C.

If there is one thing the Democrats are good at, it’s political theater. Watching them act is like melodrama of the highest order. . . or a low quality soap opera. Of all their recent fooling around, nothing approaches the drama they are generating with health care reform. Fear, hate and revenge fill the air of the Senate. . .

News Item: Dorgan Terrifies Democrats

After fourteen days of debate, the Senate has managed to vote on only eight amendments. Why has the process ground to a halt you ask? Because of little-known Senator Byron Dorgan, who, having fallen for an e-mail scam about a Mexican pharmacy, has introduced an amendment to allow the government to import prescription drugs from other countries.

This has frozen the Democrats with terror. Imagine Dorgan pulling this amendment from his briefcase as the other Democrats huddle together in a distant corner, afraid of the radioactive document. And why is it radioactive? Because this document puts them in a bind. Their idiot followers demand that they PUNISH the drug industry. But the drug industry has been bought off by the White House in a quasi-secret deal to support this reform. Passing this amendment would turn the pharma industry (and their powerful lobby) against them. Thus, they are frozen, unsure what to do.

News Item: Nelson II Terrifies Self

Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Nelson turns the Democratic position that $460 billion in Medicare cuts won’t hurt Medicare into farce. He’s decided that his political survival requires him to offer an amendment to the bill that will exempt three Democratic counties in South Florida with large retirement populations from Medicare cuts. So why would this bill hurt the oldsters in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties. . . but no one else in the country?

News Item: Howard Dean Suggests Billocide

A frustrated Howard Dean has told every camera he can find that this bill should be killed. “The Senate version is not worth passing,” growled an angry Howard Dean, a possible gun owner. “The insurance companies got to write this bill the way they wanted to. This isn’t health care reform, this isn’t even insurance reform.” He then noted, in a bizarre moment of honesty, that the bill “does nothing to reduce costs.” And he angrily poked fun at the idea that the bill would cover people with pre-existing conditions: “You can’t afford it, even if you are allowed to buy it.” I wonder if any of ObamaCare's utopian supporters heard those comments?

News Item: Nelson I Rediscovers Principles

Now that it appears the bill cannot pass, Sen. Ben Nelson has rediscovered his principles and states that he won’t support this bill unless the Stupak-like abortion language is inserted.

Meanwhile, the abortion lobby is gearing up to hunt Stupak.

News Item: Democrats Get Their Hate On For Lieberman

But the real hate this week has been aimed at Sen. Joe Lieberman. First, there were hints that Joe might lose his chairmanship. Then the Democrats went a little (lot) crazy. Screamed the shrill Ezra Klein of the Washington Post:

“And if there's a policy rationale here, it's not apparent to me, or to others who've interviewed him. At this point, Lieberman seems primarily motivated by torturing liberals. That is to say, he seems willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.”

And loony Klein is not alone. Jonathan Chait of The New Republic, makes the same claim:

“He seems to view the prospect of sticking it to the liberals who supported his Democratic opponent in 2006 as a goal potentially worth sacrificing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans to fulfill.”

Chait then gets his anti-Semitism on to explain Lieberman’s actions:

“[T]here's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform. . . I suspect that Lieberman is the beneficiary, or possibly the victim, of a cultural stereotype that Jews are smart and good with numbers. Trust me, it's not true.”

He finishes by accusing Lieberman of simply being anti-liberal:

“If the liberals like it, then he figures it's big government and he should oppose it. I think it's basically that simple.”

Hate-filled, leftist Huffington Post blogger (or is that redundant) Jane Hamsher has gotten out her long knives for Lieberman’s wife. She accuses Hadassah Lieberman of being a shill for the insurance industry (hmmm, didn’t Howard Dean mention insurance companies above?). Hamsher, thus, wants Mrs. Lieberman fired from being a spokesman for the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which fights breast cancer. She also accuses Hadassah of “being instrumental” in killing HillaryCare.

No word yet on whether Hamsher is looking to injure Lieberman’s kids, but I haven’t read all of her diatribes.

But these are just bloggers and/or Howard Dean -- they don’t count. No real politician would act this way, right? Actually, they would. Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut is calling for Connecticut to recall Lieberman, even though Connecticut has no law to do this and even though the United States Constitution does not allow states to do this.

“No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I’ll say it flat out, I think he out to be recalled.”

Added Connecticut Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy, “People are fed up in Connecticut, and it’s maddening to those of us who feel we have a pretty clear sense of where people in Connecticut are.”

Nice. So if you don’t toe the party line, you need to be removed from office. And these same little totalitarians had the nerve to blast the Republicans for suggesting that candidates who did not agree to 8 of 10 positions would not get financial assistance. Hypocrisy, thy name is “Democratic Party.”

So why did Lieberman do it? According to Lieberman, he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the Medicare proposal by liberals who had been championing the public option:

“Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare buy-in is better than a public option, it’s the beginning of a road to single-payer. Jacob Hacker, who’s a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, ‘This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.’”

*** BREAKING NEWS ***

Finally, we predicted a few weeks ago, that liberals would soon begin throwing around the word “betrayal.” Guess what word The Politico used to describe how liberals feel about Obama’s behavior:

“And as Democrats tried to salvage health reform Tuesday, some liberals could barely hide their sense of betrayal that the White House and congressional Democrats have been willing to cut deals and water down what they consider the ideal vision of reform.”

and

“Progressives feel betrayed, but are not surprised, by the Senate’s move to drop the Medicare buy-in and the public option. They blame Reid and Obama for not exercising their power to fight for the provisions.”

Equally interesting, check out the conspiracy theory thinking being promoted by our old friend Jane Hamsher:

“They were very good at making it look like they wanted a public option in the final bill without actually doing anything to make it happen. It’s hard to believe that the two most powerful people in the country — arguably the world — could not do more to achieve their desired objective than to hand the keys over to Joe Lieberman. They would not be where they are if they are that bad at negotiation.”

Wow, so Obama didn't fail, he never really tried?! How about a tin-foil hat to go with your brown shirt Jane! It’s all a plot! The bells!! The bells!!!

If anyone ever needed proof that leftists are petulant and unbalanced, here it is.

Enjoy!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Health Care Reform: No Deal??

This one’s interesting. Do you remember the big deal last week to get the Baucus bill through the Senate? Yeah, that one. . . with the liberals “giving up” the public option and the moderates agreeing to destroy Medicare sooner by letting people as young as 55 into Medicare? Well, apparently, that deal may not exist. Curious.

The first clue we had that there was no deal should have been the refusal of the Democrats to release the terms of the deal, while simultaneously crowing about "the deal" to any microphone they could find. And as the week went on, and no details of the deal emerged, people began to ask questions. That’s when the most fascinating thing happened, the admissions started coming out.

First came Sen. Bob Casey, who told the New York Times: “Any big agreement is progress, even if we do not know any of the details.” Read that again. How can there be an agreement with no details?

Maybe Casey is just out of the loop, being from a small, backwater state like Pennsylvania. Let’s listen to Dick Durbin, the Number 2 Democrat in the Senate respond to John McCain’s demand for information about the deal, i.e. the legislation, they’re supposed to be voting on. Surely he knows the details:

“I would say to the senator from Arizona that I’m in the dark almost as much as he is, and I’m in the leadership.”

*scratches head* Really? Hmm. How can this be?

McCain followed up on Durbin's admission with the following:

“Isn’t that a very unusual process? We are discussing one-sixth of the gross national product; the bill before us has been a product of almost a year of sausage-making. Yet here we are at a position on December 12, with a proposal that none of us, except, I understand, one person, the Majority Leader, knows what the final parameters are, much less informing the American people. I don't get it.”

And Durbin, of course, denied this, right? Actually, no. “I think the senator [from Arizona] is correct.” But Durbin did try to shift the blame to the CBO, arguing that the reason no one knew the details was that they awaited the big, bad, secretive CBO’s verdict: “We may find that something that was sent over there doesn’t work at all, doesn’t fly.”

You think? How about these two problems you face. First, the Democrats are counting on $25 billion in phantom savings from “competition created by the public option” to reduce the overall cost of the bill. No public option, no phantom savings. That means they now need to find an additional $25 billion to make their phony numbers appear to balance.

Secondly, nobody likes the plan to expand Medicare. Old people are freaked out that their health insurance is about to go away. Hospitals are freaked out that they cannot afford this (they lose nine cents on each dollar of health care they provide under Medicare already). Governors claim it’s breaking their budgets. Even those socialists at the Business Roundtable are backing off this turkey.

Various senators don’t like the plan either. Said Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida (not to be confused with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska), this deal is a “non-starter.” That’s a strange thing to say for a man who just made an agreement.

And he’s not alone. Ten more Democrats wrote a letter this week complaining that this compromise would make it harder for seniors to get treatment under Medicare because “provider shortages in states with low reimbursement rates such as ours will make such a program ineffective, or even worsen the problems these states are experiencing.” These ten were: Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Patrick Leahy (Vermont), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Tom Udall (N.M.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Al Franken (SNL).

Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe also criticized the proposal. Lieberman indicated that he was growing “increasingly concerned” with the proposal:

“I am increasingly troubled about the proposal. I am worried about what impact it will have on the Medicare program’s fiscal viability and also what effect it will have on the premiums paid by people benefiting from Medicare now.”

Nelson stated that this could be an intermediate step to a public option “which I do not like.” He further stated, “I wouldn’t be surprised if this thing does not become a viable option. I think it is going to be the lesser of the popular things, but I am keeping an open mind.”

Olympia Snowe was not as optimistic. “I have serious concerns. I just think that is the wrong direction to take.” She further stated that she could not see a way to even tweak the proposal to win her vote. “I can’t see it.”

Maybe there was no deal after all? It’s sure starting to sound that way.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Senator Exposes Himself!

Ever since Reagan swept the land, the Democrats have done their best to hide their agenda. This has included trying to disguise their agenda behind false market economics, trying to create new labels for failed ideas, and sometimes flat out lying about what they believe. One trick of which they are quite fond is a trick that Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska just pulled on his voters. . . the old, “I really am against what I’m supporting” trick.

The backdrop: As you know, the Democrats are struggling to get the Baucus bill out of the Senate. They need sixty votes and they are stuck on two issues: abortion and the public option. The reason these two issues are presenting such a problem is not that the Democrats don’t overwhelmingly agree on both issues, it’s that they need the support of 60 Senators to move the bill forward for a vote. With Republican opposition firm, and Joe Lieberman joining the Republicans in opposing a public option, the Democrats cannot pass the bill if it includes a public option. At the same time, since the Democrats literally cannot afford to lose one vote, the opposition of any Democrat would prove disastrous. That’s where abortion comes in.

Sen. Ben Nelson claims to be an opponent of abortion. Thus, he introduced a bill that would impose the same limits on abortion under the Baucus bill that currently exist under PelosiCare. Basically, he introduced his version of the Stupak Amendment. The Stupak Amendment (or in this case the Nelson Amendment) would prevent insurers from indirectly paying for abortions through the use of accounting fictions whereby money is separated into supposedly separate pools. Said Nelson: “Segregation of funds is an accounting gimmick. The reality is federal funds would help buy coverage that includes abortion.”

This was a make or break issue Sen. Nelson told the people of Nebraska -- though few intelligent people believed him because he’s a Democrat and they will sacrifice their deepest held beliefs without a second thought whenever those beliefs stand in the way of “progress.” The doubters were right.

When he introduced this amendment, Sen. Nelson made it clear on several occasions that he would not support any bill that did not include this language.

“As written, the Senate health care bill allows taxpayer dollars, directly and indirectly, to pay for insurance plans that cover abortion. Most Nebraskans, and Americans, do not favor using public funds to cover abortion and as a result this bill shouldn’t open the door to do so.”

The amendment lost 54-45. So here comes his statement of conscience, his principled stand right? What? Why are you laughing? You think a Democrat can’t take a stand on principle? Well. . . apparently, you’re right. Right after the vote, Nelson (as predicted) did not reaffirm that he would oppose the bill, no. . . he only stated that this “makes it harder” for him to support the bill. He added, “We’ll just have to see what develops.”

Translation: “People of Nebraska, I will never compromise my principles until they are actually put to a vote.”

This, by the way, is after Nelson participated in a huge fraud to begin with. He let the Democrats threaten the insurance industry with the loss of their anti-trust exemption (Nelson is partially owned by the Nebraska-based insurance industry and partially owned by the ethanol lobby). He then graciously accepted a withdrawal of that threat in exchange for his vote on Baucus -- allowing him to sell his “reluctant support” to the people of Nebraska as being in their own interest. Shameless.

But Nelson wasn’t the only one to be exposed. Harry Reid too lies to his constituents. He claims to be anti-abortion, but he said this of this health care bill:

“This is not the right place for this debate. . . No one should use the issue of abortion to rob millions of the opportunity to get good health care.”

Translation: “People of Nevada, I really am anti-abortion, just like I’ve been telling you. . . I just think we should allow public funding of abortion.”

Of course, they aren't the only ones who have exposed themselves. You know about Landrieu accepting a $300 billion pay off for her vote. Blanche Lincoln has made it clear she will act against the overwhelming interests of her constituents, as have many others like fellow Arkansas Sen. David Pryor. The AMA was exposed. It supported this monster, despite two-to-one opposition from doctors. AARP supported this even though the elderly overwhelmingly oppose it -- they were bought off with a promise to eliminate Medicare Advantage, which will lead to nine million more elderly needing AARP-sponsored insurance. In fact, the entire left-wing lobby has been exposed. . . the list goes on and on.

The issue of the public option also took a strange turn yesterday, and may have exposed more senators. Supposedly moderate Democrats like David Pryor agreed to "drop" the public option in exchange for non-profit plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Hmm. That sounds a lot like a public option to me. . . and it does to Harry Reid too:

“It is a consensus that includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways. One, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

The cries of the little socialists as Huffpo not withstanding, it's clear that the public option still exists. So can you name a senator who swore that he would never support any plan that included a public option or could lead to a public option? That's right, it was Joe Lieberman. Guess what Joe said this morning? Joe indicated this morning that he may be willing to support this new public option: "I am encouraged by the progress toward a consensus."

Why am I not surprised.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Heath Care: The Victory That Wasn't. . .

Saturday night, Obama won a dramatic victory. . . his health care plan cleared THE hurdle. . . nothing can stop it now. At least, that’s how CNN interpreted the Senate vote on the Baucus bill. So is CNN right? Hardly, and by Sunday morning, the Baucus goggles had worn off and reality was setting in. ObamaCare is no closer to becoming law. All the impasses remain. All Harry Reid (left, fondling his package) got was a little PR from the likes of CNN to make his stupider followers happy. And the price he paid? Three Democrats got to expose themselves to their voters, and Reid may have made passage even more difficult.

What The Vote Really Means Procedurally

Since few in the press are explaining the current process in the Senate correctly, if at all, let me explain what happened Saturday. The Senate did not pass the bill, nor did it set the bill up for a straight up 50% +1 vote. The Senate voted 60-39 to open debate on the Baucus bill. That’s it.

This means that for the next three plus weeks, the Senate will debate this bill. Each Senator can have their say and can attempt to add any amendments to the bill that they want, like taking out the public option or allocating $500 million to study whether or not cows would buy pornography if they had greater access to credit cards.

At the end of those three weeks, the Senate will vote on whether or not to close debate and proceed to a vote. This is the part CNN didn’t seem to get. Unless (and until) the Senate can get 60 votes to close the debate, there will be no vote. No vote, no bill.

But Dingy Harry’s Got The Sixty Votes Right?

Does Harry Reid have the 60 votes needed to close debate? Nope. He had 60 to open debate, because that was an easy vote. It was an easy vote because it didn’t require any of the Democrats to give up their conflicting views on what the final Senate bill should look like. It was just a vote to keep talking. And no one on their side can afford to be seen stopping this debate before the final monster takes shape. Only then can they give reasons why they decided not to unstrap the beast.

Indeed, had Lieberman (or any of the “moderate” Democrats) voted “no” on the basis that it included a public option, he would have faced the charge that it remained uncertain that it would have included a public option and that he prematurely killed the bill. So the vote makes sense. But it’s also a meaningless vote. Because this vote did not require anyone to compromise, it also didn’t solve any of the impasse issues.

Just like Pelosi’s “victory” in the House did nothing to resolve the conflicts that doom PelosiCare in the House, Saturday’s vote did nothing to resolve the conflict that dooms Baucus in the Senate. Within the Senate, THE impasse issue is the public option. And unless that’s solved, there will be no vote to close debate and proceed to a vote. Right now, there is no solution to that impasse.

As we’ve pointed out before, the key Senator to focus on remains Joe Lieberman. Lieberman voted to open debate but remains on record stating that he will filibuster this bill as long as it contains a public option. Lieberman opposes the public option because:

“A public option is a radical departure from the way we’ve responded to the market in America in the past. We rely first on competition in our market economy. When the competition fails then what do we do? We regulate or we litigate.”

To get his vote to close debate, the Democrats must eliminate the public option. Yet, without a public option, other Democrats have stated that they will walk away from the bill. The Democrats have no margin of error at all in this vote, i.e. they need all 60 votes. Hence, Baucus remains at an impasse.

Will they eventually find a solution? That’s not clear. They might eventually find a solution that allows them to close the debate. For example, I remain concerned that Sen. Olympia Snowe might vote for closure if the Democrats add a trigger for the public option, but there doesn’t seem to be much support for that. Says Sen. Bernie Sanders (Socialist-Ben&Jerry’s):

"I strongly suspect that there are a number of senators, including myself, who would not support final passage without a strong public option."

So at the moment, there doesn’t appear to be a solution. And Reid’s cheap victory won’t help. Cheap victories tend to come at a high price. By pushing the bill forward so that Reid can claim to have taken action this year, Reid put a time limit on himself for resolving the impasse problem. Rather than having as long as he needed to find an acceptable compromise, he now has only 3-4 weeks to resolve this matter or the bill dies in the Senate. Not very smart Harry.

There was another price to pay too. Reid’s action exposed three of his fellow travelers as faux-moderates. Indeed, to get the sixty votes, Reid needed the agreement of three “moderate” Democrats: Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Mutual of Omaha), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Southern Comfort), and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Perdue). Each claimed to be unhappy with the public option -- as are their constituents. But they also showed that they would sell out their constituents.

For example, in what is being called The Louisiana Purchase, Landrieu sold her vote for $300 million in disaster relief for the state of New Orleans. Nelson sold his vote for a promise that the evil insurance companies against whom Obama has railed, many of which coincidentally are located in his state of Nebraska, would not lose their anti-trust protection. And Blanche got to avoid making a decision, something near and dear to her heart -- she's under heavy fire from both sides.

Interestingly, each of these faux-moderate Democrats promptly went on record to state that they are opposed to the current bill blah blah blah. Though, I wouldn’t take that too seriously. This is just “I voted for it, before I voted against it!” all over again. They’ll “reluctantly” support closure and then oppose the bill, knowing that it will pass over their “opposition.”

Yet, this buy off has raised the anger level in the Senate. Liberal Democrat Sherrod Brown (D-SEIU) of Ohio told CNN this weekend:

“In the end, I don’t want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it’s not going to be in it.”

Them’s fighting words. . . or demands for a share of the take. It's also an admission of how he sees the "independents."

Conclusion

This vote did nothing to solve the problem: 41 Senators currently oppose closure. Unless that changes, the Baucus bill can’t pass. And keep in mind, this still remains only the first round. Even if these fools manage to get enough votes to close debate, there is still the problem of mixing this bill with the House bill.

As we noted before, there are serious conflicts between the House version and the Senate version. The House bill is entirely unacceptable in the Senate, and the Senate bill is unacceptable in the House. Not to mention that Pelosi hasn’t solved her own problems. Indeed, Pelosi got the House bill passed only by pushing off decisions on several issues that create their own impasses in the House. Those need to be settled before the House can pass the final bill, and they don’t appear to have solutions. And even if they do, they will only exacerbate the conflicts with the Senate.

Right now, these bills face four impasses: the public option, the abortion issue, the illegal alien issue, and how to pay for the bill. These impasses exist in both chambers and between the chambers, with neither chamber seems likely to bend.

So while the Democrats want to declare this vote a victory, just as they declared Pelosi’s vote a victory, they might want to consider that they’ve achieved nothing yet except vote to agree to fight at a later date.

If I were a Democrat, I wouldn’t be celebrating. . . I’d be wondering why a party with such a massive majority in both chambers, and a President to guide them, can’t get its act together.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

PelosiCare’s Pyrrhic Victory

Once again, the MSM has it wrong. The House voted 220-215 to pass PelosiCare and today the media is busy celebrating Nancy Pelosi’s “victory.” But I wouldn’t buy the confetti just yet. As I see it, last night made it much more difficult for the Democrats to pass any version of ObamaCare. What a shame. Consider the following. . .

1. The Senate Problem

Passing the Baucus bill was already going to be a challenge. As we discussed before, the Democrats lacked the support of two key Senators -- Snowe and Lieberman, with several more sitting on the fence.

The House bill goes much further than the Senate bill. Indeed, even noted RINO Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Reid’s Lap) stated today that: “The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. It was a bill written by liberals for liberals.”

Joe Lieberman likewise re-confirmed that he would not allow any bill that includes a public option to reach a vote in the Senate:

“If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today.”

If Lieberman is to be believed, he will not let a bill pass that could result in a public option after the bill is reconciled with the House bill. But the House lacks the votes to pass anything that doesn’t include a public option. Basically, it’s a stand off.

Moreover, seeing that the House does not have the votes to move toward the center, and the Senate will not move left to meet the House, one should expect opposition to grow in the Senate to even putting this thing to a vote. Why vote on something that cannot pass? Indeed, I’m suspecting that several Democrats are quietly sending thank you letters to Snowe and Lieberman as we speak.

Thus, Pelosi’s inability to play well with others, her unwillingness to compromise and her inability to seek consensus before acting, may have just made a Senate vote much less likely. . . which would kill ObamaCare.

2. Unresolved House Problems

Even aside from the Senate problem, passage in the House actually still remains in doubt. Indeed, this vote solved nothing, it just put off the moment of decision:

• The Abortion Problem

Abortion has been a serious problem throughout this entire process. As we stated before, there are a group of 40 or so House Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) who have stated that they will not vote for any bill that allows the use of public funds to pay for abortion. On the other side are a group of about 190 pro-abortion Democrats who will not vote for this bill if it does not cover abortion. Another stand off.

Pelosi “resolved” this dispute with a stupid bit of double-dealing. She let the anti-abortion group insert language (tougher than they even demanded originally) into the bill, but she simultaneously promised the pro-abortion group that this language would not be in the final bill. Indeed, Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Planned Parenthood) has already stated that if the restrictions imposed by Stupak make it into the final bill, “many of us couldn’t support it at the end of the day.” Rep. Diane DeGette (D-NARAL) called this “the greatest restriction of a women’s [sic] right to choose passed by Congress in our career. [sic]”

So the problem remains. Both sides have the power to kill the bill, and neither side will budge. And even if this can ultimately be resolved, do nervous Senators take that chance and put their votes on record?

By the way, let me credit the Republicans with backing the Stupak amendment and thereby keeping this controversy alive. Brilliant tactical move.

• Illegal Aliens

Both the House and the Senate bill explicitly prevent illegal aliens from using the new system. This is a requirement for the bill to pass. But then. . . Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Mexico) said that Hispanic lawmakers got a pledge from the House leadership “to defeat” any attempts to insert language that bars illegal aliens from participation, and they would oppose the final bill if it contained such language. Hmm.

3. Why Support Will Fall, Not Rise

Further, don’t expect support for this bill to grow, as usually happens after a bill passes. Normally, Americans give the benefit of the doubt to bills after they pass, and give them a chance to work. But support for this bill will not rise, it will fall as more and more negative details keep slipping out. Take a gander at these. . .

• Insurance Is Too Expensive

Section 224 of the bill requires the HHS Secretary to decide what constitutes a qualified plan within 18 months. On November 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what these “qualified plans” would likely cost. An individual who earns $44,000 will need to pay $7,300 a year -- 17% of their pre-tax income. A family earning $102,000 will need to pay $20,300 -- 20% of its pre-tax income. That will go over like a lead balloon.

But the public option or the exchanges will save us right? Actually, no. According to the CBO the public plans “would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums” for private plans.

• Options? You Don’t Need No Stinking Options

Under Section 303, the bill appears to provide for three options -- basic, enhanced and premium levels. But those levels refer only to the co-pays and deductibles (and you thought those would go away?). The plans themselves will be “one size fits all” in terms of coverage.

• The Jail Thing

The House Joint Committee on Taxation has confirmed that Pelosi can send you to prison if you don’t get coverage. Anyone who does not get acceptable health insurance coverage and who refuses to pay the fine (2.5% of income) is subject to a fine of $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years -- about what you get for armed robbery.

Interestingly, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-FascismLand) notes that: “There’s just going to be some people who choose rather to pay the fine than to pay for health care. There’s going to be some people that just philosophically don’t want to buy health care.” And if they don’t, we make them political prisoners. . . for the good of the American Volk!

• The Uninsurable Problem

The biggest supporters of this bill are the five million uninsurable Americans who think they’re going to be covered. But they’ve just learned that they need to wait six months to be considered uninsurable. Said the American Cancer Society, “if you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can’t wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death.”

Moreover, they won’t be able to afford their insurance. PelosiCare lumps these people into pools with other uninsurables, which pools are supposed to be self-sustaining. Translated into English, your premiums will be thousands of dollars a month.

To cut this cost, the Democrats have allocated just $5 billion dollars. That works out to $1,000 subsidy per participant over a ten year period -- less than $10 a month. Any chance that’s all it takes to help pay for someone with an uninsurable condition? And if that’s all it takes, why not just get Sally Struthers to beg rich foreigners for $10 a month. . . “33 cents a day can change a life.”

• The Funding Problem

Even leaving aside who the Democrats plan to tax to pay for this -- currently an impassable point of contention between the House and Senate -- this bill contains a bizarre contradiction: it relies on people refusing to participate to pay for the bill. Indeed, the House assumes that millions of Americans will rather pay the fine than buy the health care, to the tune of $167 billion. If these people fool us and sign up for the bill, this money vanishes. Chaos ensues.

• The End of Medicare As You Know It

The bill also cuts $500 billion from Medicare, a program that already bankrupts doctors. But what’s worse, the bill fundamentally changes the way Medicare works by allowing Pelosi to dictate your treatment decisions.

Section 1302 of the bill introduces something called a “medical home,” which is euphemism speak for an HMO. Right now Medicare lets you choose your own doctor and the doctor is paid for each service provided. This new plan requires primary care providers to determine whether or not you can see specialists or get specific tests. The CBO says these medical homes will resemble “unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago.”

• Interest Group Payoffs

Finally, the bill is crawling with giveaways to left wing interests. For example, Section 299V gives money to community groups. Section 222 provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. ¿Qué es eso? And Sections 2521 and 2533 establish racial and ethnic preferences in nurse training.

4. Democrats Exposed

This has all the makings of a pyrrhic victory. How pyrrhic? To give Pelosi her moment in the sun (not literally of course, because that would kill her. . . but figuratively), the Democrats have now exposed themselves to the American people.

The public hates this bill. Poll after poll shows support dropping like a stone in a lake -- 42% at last check. And the elections in Virginia and New Jersey demonstrated the level of anger the public holds. Even Owens in New York had to promise to oppose PelosiCare to get elected, a promise he promptly broke.

With this vote, the public now sees the Democratic Party laid out in all of its public-ignoring, healthcare-system-seizing, petty-tyrannical glory. Leftist bastards. There is no hiding anymore. No one who voted for this monster can claim to be a moderate. . . and, best of all, they exposed themselves for the sake of a bill that will never pass!

And let’s not forget the “Blue Dogs” who voted against this thing. They aren’t blameless. They could have stopped this thing long ago on numerous procedural votes. They also could have joined with Republicans to create real reform. . . but they didn’t. They are as complicit in this assault on America as if they had loaned Pelosi the crowbar.

Moreover, their vote was nothing but self-preservation. Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the bill, 31 represent (and I use that term loosely) districts that voted for Old Man McCain over Menthol Smooth B. Obama. Of the remaining eight, three are freshmen who defeated Republicans in 2008. One Democrat, Rep. Betsy Markey (D-FingerInTheWind) only voted “no” after it was clear the Democrats had the votes to pass the bill.

So in the end, while the left trumpets this as a victory, this could well turn out to be the most pyrrhic victory in the history of pyrrhic victories.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Harry Reid’s Mistake On The Public Option

Not a full post tonight, but I wanted to update everyone on Harry Reid’s public option mistake and on who is important in the Senate right now (** cough cough call them cough **). As you know, I wrote the other day that I thought they would have a problem passing the Baucus bill. One of the reasons listed was the public option debate. Guess what. . .

You may have heard that yesterday, Harry Reid announced that the Baucus bill would include a public option. In fact, he selected a public option that states could “opt out of”, and that was that -- the end. At the time, the left declared this a victory and their friends in the media trumpeted the coming of ObamaCare.

But as I watched Harry give his press conference, it was clear that he was nervous. Sure, he was angry -- lashing out at Republicans, and he was smug, but he refused to answer whether he was sure that he had the 60 votes he needs for cloture, i.e. to prevent a filibuster. He had clearly gambled.

Not more than five minutes after his lips stopped flapping, CNBC announced that Olympia Snowe was very upset by this. And while she did not say that she would not vote closure, she indicated that she could not support a bill with an “opt out” or “opt in” provision. Whoops. (FYI, Reid then attacked her, commenting that she has been “frightened” into dropping her support. Sounds sexist to me.)

This morning, Joe Lieberman, who is fast becoming my favorite Democrat, announced that he would not support this bill. But even more so, he noted that he would filibuster the bill if it continues to include a public option:

“I’ve told Sen. Reid that if the bill stays as it is now, I will vote against cloture. I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company. It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Honestly, Lieberman’s opposition was unexpected. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled. I just didn’t think he would stand in the way of this.

With Lieberman and Snowe bolting, Reid cannot bring the bill for a vote because he’s only got 59 votes. Even worse for Reid, Lieberman and Snowe’s defections are now encouraging others to start wavering. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) both had already voiced reservations and have now confirmed their reservations (though they have stopped short of saying they won’t vote for the bill). But now, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del) says that he is unhappy with the bill and will seek to make changes on the Senate floor. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind) also has voiced concerns over the bill and now will not say which way he will vote on cloture (Bayh is upset about $40 billion in taxes imposed on medical equipment providers).

So while this battle is far from over, it looks like Harry’s declaration proved to be a total disaster. And I suspect that the longer this goes without resolution, the greater the chance that more Democrats will revolt -- not to mention that they still need to merge this with a House bill that is entirely unpalatable to most of the Senate.

If you feel like calling or writing anyone in Congress, these would be the people. Tell them that you see a vote for closure as a vote for the public option. . . and you don’t want a public option.

In the meantime, get some popcorn, kick back, and watch the fall out from Harry’s bomb.

** UPDATE: Olympia Snowe has now said that she will vote against cloture. Thus, Reid does not have the sixty votes he needs.


(FYI, I will put up an article outlining why the Baucus bill can be repealed tomorrow night. Thanks for your patience.)


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...