A new council has been formed which will be handing a report to Obama by July 1st, 2010 (some 16 days from now) to:
(a) describes the activities and efforts on prevention, health promotion, and public health and activities to develop the national strategy conducted by the Council during the period for which the report is prepared;
for this purpose:
(a) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal level, and among all executive departments and agencies, with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States;
and is meant to:
(c) contains a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification(including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States;
I find the inclusion of the Department of Homeland Security as part of a council on health issues to be very interesting. I also find the fact that the reports are to be submitted annually until January 1, 2015 to be very curious. What happens then?
Warning: the link below goes straight to WhiteHouse.gov. All emphasis is completely mine and meant to help skimmers.
Executive Order– Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council
ESTABLISHING THE NATIONAL PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION, AND PUBLIC HEALTH COUNCIL
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Council).
Sec. 2. Membership.
(a) The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall be composed of:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture; (2) the Secretary of Labor; (3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services; (4) the Secretary of Transportation; (5) the Secretary of Education; (6) the Secretary of Homeland Security; (7) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; (8) the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission; (9) the Director of National Drug Control Policy; (10) the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council; (11) the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs; (12) the Chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and (13) the head of any other executive department or agency that the Chair may, from time to time, determine is appropriate.
Remember when Nazi Nancy stated that once they kick down the healthcare door, more legislation would follow? Lynn Woolsey is planning on introducing the ‘robust public option’ bill tomorrow when Bahana C. Obama signs the fascist health care bill into law.
A leader of the House liberals’ caucus said Monday she’ll introduce new legislation to revive the public option.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said she plans to unveil legislation to add the government-run option to the national healthcare exchange established by legislation President Barack Obama is to sign tomorrow.
“We will introduce a robust public option bill on the very day the president signs the reconciliation bill into law,” Woolsey said Monday during an interview on MSNBC.
The public insurance option had been a part of the healthcare legislation first approved by the House in November, but Senate Democratic leaders were forced to abandon the provision after it became clear that they wouldn’t be able to get all 60 Democrats (at the time) to sign onto legislation containing that provision.
Woolsey and her co-chairman of the caucus, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), had pushed for the public option throughout the different stages of the health debate, but still ended up voting in favor of the legislation in the end, despite some threats to do otherwise earlier in the process.
Some Senate Democrats, like Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), have spoken of revisiting the public option down the line, too.
And although it’s not clear whether the votes are there to advance such a measure, Woolsey said she’d seen some enthusiasm for her measure.
“Every single member who I’ve mentioned to reintroducing the robust public option has said, ‘Sign me on,'” she said.
The California congresswoman’s effort could be compared in a way to Republican efforts emerging Monday. A number of House and Senate GOP lawmakers have gotten behind bills to repeal the bill, which was passed Sunday night.
Michael Bennet (D-CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have signed a letter to Harry Reid asking for a public option to be brought before the full Senate under budget reconciliation rules because it will save BILLIONS according to CBO projections. How often has the government been right about their projections, and what is $25 Billion compared to the trillions of red ink we are now buried under?
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t his terminology suggest that a reconciliation package is already in the works even though the White House is doing the dog and pony, health care show on the 25th? These are Bennet’s words, not mine.
And if that doesn’t work, we will be looking at Obamacare through the signing of a presidential executive order, right?
CBO Projections Show Public Option Could Yield Savings of At Least $25 billion
February 16, 2010
Denver, CO – In his continued effort to pass health care reform that lowers costs and leads to higher quality care, Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator for Colorado, is leading the effort in the Senate to pass health insurance reform that includes a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
Bennet has written a letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid and is circulating it for additional signatures. In the letter, Bennet highlights findings from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that said a public option could yield cost savings of at least $25 billion. Bennet also pointed to the fact that a public option would provide Americans with a low-cost alternative to private insurance and improve market competitiveness.
In addition, the letter noted that there is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies, including the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), COBRA, and Medicare Advantage.
“Too many people in Washington believe that just saying you are for health care reform is a substitute for actually getting something done,” said Bennet. “While some choose to stall progress under the pretext of principle, more and more Americans are losing the health care coverage they need. Coloradans deserve better than political leaders who care more about the special interests than the people we’re supposed to represent. They deserve a Washington that is more concerned about the thousands of dollars being lost by families struggling to pay for coverage than the millions being spent by special interests intent on stopping reform in its tracks.”
In the letter, Bennet also pointed to widespread public support for a public health insurance option as evidence that the American people see it as an essential component of health care reform that lowers costs and improves the quality of care.
Late last year, before voting in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Bennet criticized the backroom deals, delay tactics and political posturing that led to the removal of the public option in health care reform.
The full text of the letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid is included below:
The Honorable Harry Reid United States Senate Majority Leader Washington, DC 20510
Dear Leader Reid:
We respectfully ask that you bring for a vote before the full Senate a public health insurance option under budget reconciliation rules.
There are four fundamental reasons why we support this approach – its potential for billions of dollars in cost savings; the growing need to increase competition and lower costs for the consumer; the history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation; and the continued public support for a public option.
A Public Option Is an Important Tool for Restoring Fiscal Discipline.
Are You Freakin’ Kidding Me? Fiscal Discipline and Congress in the same breath? Really?????
As Democrats, we pledged that the Senate health care reform package would address skyrocketing health care costs and relieve overburdened American families and small businesses from annual double-digit health care cost increases. And that it would do so without adding a dime to the national debt.
We know what your pledges are worth; ‘for it before you were against it’.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the Senate health reform bill is actually better than deficit neutral. It would reduce the deficit by over $130 billion in the first ten years and up to $1 trillion in the first 20 years.
These cost savings are an important start. But a strong public option can be the centerpiece of an even better package of cost saving measures. CBO estimated that various public option proposals in the House save at least $25 billion. Even $1 billion in savings would qualify it for consideration under reconciliation.
Put simply, including a strong public option is one of the best, most fiscally responsible ways to reform our health insurance system.
A Public Option Would Provide Americans with a Low-Cost Alternative and Improve Market Competitiveness.
A strong public option would create better competition in our health insurance markets. Many Americans have no or little real choice of health insurance provider. Far too often, it’s “take it or leave it” for families and small businesses. This lack of competition drives up costs and leaves private health insurance companies with little incentive to provide quality customer service.
A recent Health Care for America Now report on private insurance companies found that the largest five for-profit health insurance providers made $12 billion in profits last year, yet they actually dropped 2.7 million people from coverage. Private insurance – by gouging the public even during a severe economic recession – has shown it cannot function in the public’s interest without a public alternative. Americans have nowhere to turn. That is not healthy market competition, and it is not good for the public.
If families or individuals like their current coverage through a private insurance company, then they can keep that coverage. And in some markets where consumers have many alternatives, a public option may be less necessary. But many local markets have broken down, with only one or two insurance providers available to consumers. Each and every health insurance market should have real choices for consumers.
There is a history of using reconciliation for significant pieces of health care legislation.
There is substantial Senate precedent for using reconciliation to enact important health care policies. The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare Advantage, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), which actually contains the term ‘reconciliation’ in its title, were all enacted under reconciliation.
The American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein and Brookings’ Thomas Mann and Molly Reynolds jointly wrote, “Are Democrats making an egregious power grab by sidestepping the filibuster? Hardly.” They continued that the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes is “much more extensive . . . than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days.”
There is strong public support for a public option, across party lines.
Once again, AYFKM? I trust Rasmussen more than the NY Times and the overwhelming opinion is that this bill in it’s entirety should be scrapped and Congress should start over. “…61% of U.S. voters say Congress should scrap that plan and start all over again.” (A little sidenote from Rasmussen, “It’s interesting to note that in a separate survey earlier this week 63% of voters said, generally speaking, it would be better for the country if most incumbents in Congress were defeated this November.”)
The overwhelming majority of Americans want a public option. The latest New York Times poll on this issue, in December, shows that despite the attacks of recent months Americans support the public option 59% to 29%. Support includes 80% of Democrats, 59% of Independents, and even 33% of Republicans.
Much of the public identifies a public option as the key component of health care reform – and as the best thing we can do to stand up for regular people against big insurance companies. In fact, overall support for health care reform declined steadily as the public option was removed from reform legislation.
Although we strongly support the important reforms made by the Senate-passed health reform package, including a strong public option would improve both its substance and the public’s perception of it. The Senate has an obligation to reform our unworkable health insurance market – both to reduce costs and to give consumers more choices. A strong public option is the best way to deliver on both of these goals, and we urge its consideration under reconciliation rules.
So there you have it kids. The future is looking like the progressives are going to shove Obamacare down our throats using reconciliation….just like we knew they would.
The Senate healthcare reform bill is a zombie that keeps coming no matter what one does to obliterate it. The Medicare buy-in and the public option are both dead, and now the Senate Democratic Caucus has been summoned to the White House for, I’m sure, whining and hand-wringing. This bill is NOT DEAD yet, and I am sure these discussions will revolve around achieving passage so that the dems can get their liberal left foot in the door of 1/6th of the economy. I wonder how they will pass off Code Red happening right on the Capitol steps?
Senate Democrats late Monday said they were moving toward eliminating a Medicare expansion from the health care overhaul — the last vestige of a public insurance option — as their party leaders tried to appease moderates in pursuit of the 60 votes needed to pass President Obama’s top agenda item by Christmas.
“There’s a general consensus building, supported by the leadership, that there’s a lot of good things in this bill and in order to get those accomplished that particular proposal would be gone,” Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat, said when leaving a closed-door meeting of Democrats.
Is there the possibility of buying insurance that a person takes with them when they change jobs, or the ability to purchase insurance across state lines? Is there anything in this bill that gets your employer out from between you and your doctor? How about tort reform? What about the rationing that is about to occur when 35 million people are added to the pool with only 836,000 doctors? What about the rationing for Grandma and Grandpa because $500 Billion is slated to be cut from Medicare? Are those the good things that Bayh is talking about, or is it that as an American citizen, if you wish to stay here in America, you MUST purchase health insurance mandated by an un-Constitutional law passed by a congress that is not upholding it’s oath? What about those representatives and senators that don’t have to use this health care program because they voted to opt out? Watch Sen. Orrin Hatch explain the un-Constitutionality of this bill and the loss of liberty because of it.
“Democrats aren’t going to let the American people down. We all stand shoulder to shoulder,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who did not commit publicly to jettisoning the Medicare buy-in even though party members said it was inevitable.
Senate Democrats are scheduled to meet with Mr. Obama on Tuesday. In order to vote on Christmas Eve, Democratic leaders would have to get the necessary procedural measures in motion by the end of the week. White House officials were encouraging Mr. Reid to eliminate the Medicare plan. Democrats said they likely would be in session this weekend.
The White House is encouraging the elimination of the Medicare plan; can you say “foot in the door”? This little pow-wow today is all about the strategy of getting this passed by Christmas. This bill is not dead by any stretch of the imagination.
Removing the public insurance plan and the Medicare buy-in proposal, which liberals long championed as the best way to drive down health care costs, would eliminate the most controversial element of the health care debate.
How are health care costs going to be driven down now with the main delivery systems being axed, and are the senators going to be voting on it before the CBO score comes back next week?
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Keep calling your senators, keep letting them know if they are really lucky, they will be retired during their next election cycle.
No time to be celebrating the demise of the public option with the agreement reached by Senate dems. No time to be fighting over the abortion amendment; it’s all smoke and mirrors. This is a pure case of not noticing the right hand holding a large sledgehammer while they are fervently waving a big fat carrot with the left hand hoping to keep the sheeples mesmerized.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democratic healthcare negotiators said they agreed on Tuesday to replace a government-run insurance option with a scaled-back non-profit plan and would seek cost estimates on the deal.
“We have a broad agreement,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid told reporters, refusing to provide details of the healthcare proposals to be sent to the Congressional Budget Office.
A team of 10 Senate Democrats — five liberals and five moderates — had worked for days to find a substitute to the government-run “public” insurance option included in the Senate healthcare bill after moderates voiced concerns about it.
The government-run plan has been one of the biggest hurdles for the healthcare overhaul, which is President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
Democratic Senate sources said the substitute would create a non-profit plan operated by private insurers but administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises health coverage for federal workers.
One of the liberal negotiators, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, said he had concerns about the direction of the talks on the public insurance option, which was designed to create more choice for consumers and competition for insurers.
“I do not support proposals that would replace the public option in the bill with a purely private approach,” Feingold said. “We need to have some competition for the insurance industry to keep rates down and save taxpayer dollars.”
The negotiators also sought cost estimates on an expansion of the Medicare health program for the elderly, which is now available at age 65, to Americans as young as 55 who could “buy-in” to the coverage, a Democratic source said.
That proposal, designed to create more affordable insurance options for older workers, had been pushed by liberal Democrats in exchange for dropping their support for the public option.
“I’ve got a smile on my face,” Democratic Senator John Rockefeller, who has been advocating the Medicare expansion since 2001, told reporters after the talks broke up.
I realize that these bastards can sleep at night because they really do believe in their agenda of turning Americans into either serfs or corpses for “our own good”. Senator John Rockefeller being one of the biggest traitors to the Republic.
“Insurance companies will certainly have more competition,” Reid said of the deal, which he said would be enough to bring the bill to final passage. “The American people will certainly have more choices.”
The Democrats met in Reid’s office late into Tuesday, their fourth consecutive day of negotiating, and afterward Reid said the deal could lead to final passage of the bill.
Democratic Senator Tom Carper said once the cost estimates were received from CBO “then we’ll take it up and decide what we can afford.”
That is a particularily scary statement, “…what we can afford.” Scares the bejesus out of me considering we can no longer afford any of the policy initiatives being shoved through the legislative branch. Here is your reminder.
The other potential hurdle to the healthcare overhaul was abortion, and the Senate on Tuesday rejected an attempt to tighten restrictions on abortion coverage — a vote that could threaten a crucial Democrat’s support for passage of the bill.
Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s amendment to tighten the bill’s restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortions, identical to a provision approved by the House of Representatives last month, was killed on a 54-45 vote.
Without the abortion language, Nelson had threatened he would not back the final healthcare bill when it came to a vote. If he followed through, Democrats would be one vote short of the 60 they need to pass the measure.
But after his amendment failed, Nelson softened his stance slightly. “It makes it harder to be supportive. We’ll see what happens,” he told reporters.
Reid said he was willing to keep working with Nelson to add language to the bill that would resolve the concerns on both sides of the divisive issue.
“If in fact he doesn’t succeed here, we’ll try something else,” Reid said of Nelson before the vote. Nelson said he was not looking to negotiate a compromise.
The amendment would have blocked people who receive federal subsidies from buying insurance plans that cover abortions and prohibited a proposed government insurance plan from offering abortion coverage in most circumstances.
Abortion is the red herring in this game because it forces millions of conservatives and liberals to pay attention to what Harry Reid is doing; meanwhile, here is the sledgehammer in the right hand that relatively few see coming.
From Big Government, (and I did go over and read the bills – it’s in there.)
To achieve the goal of a universal, single-payer health system, the White House must secure the power it needs by amending the Social Security Act to transfer pivotal controls from Congress to the executive branch. This transfer of power would ultimately give the President and the majority party, in this case the radical left Obama White House and Pelosi-Reid led progressive Democrats, the authority to frame and manipulate new policy, coverage options, and reimbursements, ultimately reshaping the future US health care system into a something unrecognizable in this country.
The deliberate setup for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known twin bills called “MedPAC Reform of 2009” are waiting in the wings. The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch. These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn’t pass the House or Senate, respectively. Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system. (emphasis mine)
More importantly, Medicare’s regulations and physician fee schedules are the keystone to developing payer systems and reimbursement models across the entire health care industry. And where Medicare goes, insurers follow.
To underscore the far-reaching power, a bulk of the states already reference or utilize the Medicare guidelines and fee schedules in determining policy, coverage, and payment, which impacts certain state-specific plans, including, but not limited to, self-funded plans, automobile insurance payers, and state workers’ compensation funds and plans – affecting even Big Labor. For the executive branch to have such authority over Medicare regulations with little oversight is alarming. This raises further issues of the powerful impact these federal mandates could potentially have on the states in stripping them of their own management of their respective insurance industries.
Specifically, the language in the Reid bill intentionally places unlimited power directly in the hands of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, including the ability to designate covered services, or rationing. The Pelosi bill creates a Health Choices Commission and its “commissioner” is empowered to make the same decisions. More alarming, both will have to take direction from the White House–and its unconfirmed czars–due to their executive branch affiliation.
In retrospect, Obama’s pick of Sebelius as HHS Secretary is obvious. Aside from being a governor, Sebelius is the former Kansas insurance commissioner and has the ability to identify the strongest and weakest links–navigating her way quite expeditiously throughout the health care system. And she’ll never disavow one of her first career choices — executive director and chief lobbyist for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association. That explains the blatant omission of tort reform, in addition to the fact that the trial lawyers are the biggest Democrat donors.
Another disturbing Obama appointee is health care czar Nancy Ann DeParle, who remains unconfirmed, and was the administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In short, she “owns” Medicare. And if you put Sebelius and DeParle together in a room for a few hours, you’ll get a formula for a single-payer government-run health care system – with Obama’s wish list met.
These designed appointees make sense of the intentions at hand to frame a universal or single-payer health care system. Everything in this administration makes sense when you look at the overall agenda. Even the branding makes sense. The urgency, caring for the uninsured, taking advantage of the uninsurable, proclaiming it’s paid for, packaging it as deficit-neutral, and amplifying that people are ‘dying’ in the streets.
Go over, read the rest, and then send the link to your representative’s office right after you call their offices to let them know they are falling into a trap that puts even more power into the executive branch. One little sneaky bill at a time, and the balance of the powers is being eroded to the point where congress is becoming irrelevant. Dozens and dozens of czars and a “for show” congress equals one thing; dictatorship.
Let’s start with the price tag. According to the report just released by the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will cost roughly $829 billion over the next 10 years. And, significantly, it is even projected to reduce the budget deficit over 10 years by $81 billion. Of course, both those numbers are misleading.
The $829 billion cost is for the next 10 years, 2010-2019, but the most expensive provisions of the bill don’t take effect until July of 2013. The cost over the bill’s first 10 years of actual operation is closer to $1.3 trillion.
In addition, the bill assumes that Congress will implement a 21% reduction in Medicare payments that is already scheduled under current law. The only problem is that Congress has been supposed to make those reductions since 2003 — and never has. There is no reason to believe it will do so this time either.
Most importantly, the bill does not achieve its deficit reduction by controlling spending or reducing health care costs. In fact, by the end of the 10-year budget window, the cost of the program is expected to be growing at 8% per year. But revenue from the bill’s new taxes would be growing between 10% and 15% per year.
In particular, the bill imposes a 40% excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums. (emphasis mine)
As inflation pushed insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families would find themselves caught up in the tax — providing the government with more revenue.
The overall tax increases in the bill are more than double the amount of deficit reduction. This isn’t a health care efficiency bill or a cost-containment bill. It is a tax-and-spend bill, pure and simple. (emphasis mine)
With all this, the bill still leaves 25 million people uninsured.
Make sure to go over to the Cato Institute and read the whole article.
Sen. Charles Grassley’s comments with Neil Cavuto about this bill going left.
When was the last time you saw our country this FUBAR on every possible issue or policy by complete imbeciles? When was the last time you felt as if our government was, in total, being run by lobotomized walking meat sacks with their fingers on the pulse of a corpse? When? Yes, I know Bush II was a blithering idiot most of the time, but at least I could sleep at night and I knew that Nancy and Harry weren’t sneaking into my kid’s room to steal his piggy bank while pouring gasoline on my house and cheering at the bright colors.
Today (10.06.09) has been one hell of day from the UN trying to drop the dollar as the world’s reserve currency to the dance team of Harry and Nancy trying to keep their healthcare bills off the internet because they just realized that Americans that vote can read. Some days, (and today was one), I just cannot write because of the overwhelming amount of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s nest swirling all around us. Until now. The capper was Harry Reid’s possible stealth legislation for a public option, but a little background first.
The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health-insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. That number comes from polling conducted this past weekend of 1,000 likely voters. Most of these voters approach the health-care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.
Adding to President Barack Obama’s challenge as he sells health-care reform to the public is the fact that most voters are skeptical about the government’s ability to do anything well. While the president says his plan will reduce costs, 53% believe it will have the opposite effect.
There’s also the reality that 74% of voters rate the quality of care they now receive as good or excellent. And 50% fear that if Congress passes health-care reform, it will lead to a decline in the quality of that care. (emphasis mine)
Advocates of health-care reform on Capitol Hill are up against something bigger than voters’ reactions to a variety of specific proposals. Our polling in February found that by a 2-1 margin, voters believe that no matter how bad things are Congress can always make matters worse. That’s one reason 78% believe passage of the current congressional health-care proposals is likely to mean higher taxes for the middle class.
Beyond the intensity of the opposition and its momentum, there is also a huge partisan gap that puts congressional Democrats in a very difficult position. Currently, 76% of Democratic voters favor the health-care reform plan proposed by Mr. Obama and the congressional Democrats, and they are counting on their representatives to deliver.
But delivering for the Democratic base has the potential to hurt the party’s standing among independents. Among the unaffiliated, 35% are in favor of the Democrats’ health-care reform initiative, and 60% are opposed. Notably, just 16% of unaffiliated voters strongly favor the legislative effort; 47% strongly oppose it.
So what do Harry and Nancy have up their sleeves; two completely un-American actions, with a third possible action that will decimate the middle and poor classes. What happened to Bambi’s transparency, representing your constituents, and no new taxes for anyone making less than $250,000 $200,000, $150,000?
A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.
Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.
Just so you won’t think I am picking on the dems, since I really dislike both parties, and I really, really, dislike the completely un-Constitutional Patriot Act passed in the dark of the night without anybody reading it….
The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.
The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.
I guess Harry and Nancy are pulling a Bambi and Mishy maneuver of “I want what I want, when I want it, because I want it, and everybody else can just **** off”. But it gets better, and please keep in mind that a greater percentage of Americans DO NOT WANT A PUBLIC OPTION, do not like liars, and are really getting tired of the “dark of the night” votes.
Senate Democrats desperate to find a way to pass a health care bill that includes a federal insurance plan may have come up with a way to do it without putting moderate members who oppose it in political jeopardy.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is weighing a plan to bring the final health care bill to the floor without a public option — making it much easier to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster — and then adding the provision later as an amendment.
The public option amendment would be there waiting, but the 60-vote test would technically be on a bill without the government plan. Then moderate Democrats could drop out for the vote on the public option, which requires just 51 votes for passage.
“It’s brilliant,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “It gets you your votes on cloture for a package that does not include a public option.”
Reid has not revealed whether he will use this tactic, but he’s considering it.
“We haven’t made any decisions yet,” his spokesman, Jim Manley, said. “We have different options — that is one.”
Senate aides suggest that after passage in the upper chamber, the Senate bill — public option included — could then be sent to the House, allowing the lower chamber to simply pass Reid’s legislation instead of taking up its own bill. That route would avoid a protracted and contentious battle to meld two different bills and might allow President Obama and Democrats to achieve their goal of passing health care reform by year’s end.
Open-government proponents slammed the tactic, saying it would be a bait-and-switch gambit for the Senate to put forward a bill without a public insurance option, only to slip it in later.
And then add Nancy’s further insanity to this mix; the VAT.
A new value-added tax (VAT) is “on the table” to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.
The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.
Pelosi argued that the VAT would level the playing field between U.S. and foreign manufacturers, the latter of which do not have pension and healthcare costs included in the price of their goods because their governments provide those services, financed by similar taxes.
“They get a tax off of that and they use that money to pay the healthcare for their own workers,” Pelosi said, using the example of auto manufacturers. “So their cars coming into our country don’t have a healthcare component cost.
“Somewhere along the way, a value-added tax plays into this. Of course, we want to take down the healthcare cost, that’s one part of it,” the Speaker added. “But in the scheme of things, I think it’s fair look at a value- added tax as well.”
Pelosi said that any new taxes would come after the Congress finishes the healthcare debate consuming most lawmakers’ time, and that it may come as part of a larger overhaul to the tax code. The Speaker also emphasized that any reworking of the tax code would not result in an increase in taxes on middle-class Americans.
Lobotomized walking meat sack with her hand on the pulse of a corpse. Read it again:
The VAT is a tax on manufacturers at each stage of production on the amount of value an additional producer adds to a product.
Is Nancy so arrogant as to believe that we do not know that every single one of us will be paying that added tax on top of our now, “work until August to pay your taxes”, tax liability? Damn, but I hate liars. Now excuse me while I go throw up again.
(P.S. If you are new to the Monster, please take the time to read this – as it is the number one hacked post on this site. I wonder why?)