Obamacare Without a Vote

As I have addressed in several posts below, Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress appear intent on approving the massive Obamacare entitlement program without even having the House of Representatives vote on the bill.  In an article today in The Washington Post, the Speaker is quoted as follows:

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill" [emphasis added].

She likes it because the House does not have to vote?  Truly, this whole process makes my stomach churn.  The Congress of the United States, under the control of the Democratic Party, plans to take over seventeen percent of our national economy without even subjecting the matter to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.  Are the supporters of Obamacare so wedded to the idea of the federal nanny state that they are willing to flout the Constitution of the United States in order to put their social policies into effect?

Senator Byrd and the Use of "Reconcilliation"

The video above has come to light featuring our very own Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) addressing the use of the "reconcilliation" process to force controversial legislation through Congress.  In the speech, made on the floor of the Senate in 2001, Senator Byrd explains how he opposed President Clinton's plan to use reconcilliation to pass Hilarycare.  I have not been able to determine the context of the speech, which was made when George W. Bush was President, but I would assume that he was using his opposition to President Clinton's plan to illustrate why he was opposing some Republican plan to use reconcilliation in 2001.  I seldom agree with Sen. Byrd, but I certainly do agree with him that reconcilliation should never be used to force passage of a controversial bill that does not have the support in Congress to pass by the normal set of parliamentary rules.  I checked Sen. Byrd's website and found nothing regarding Speaker Pelosi's current parliamentary manuevers.  I wonder if he will make the same floor speech this time around.

Notes from Here and There

Watching Sausage Being Made.  Want to understand the parliamentary mechanics required for Speaker Pelosi to get the Senate's Obamacare bill passed in the House of Representatives?  An explanation of the ugly process may be found here and here (if you have the stomach for it).

Debunking More Obamacare Myths.    How often have you heard that the uninsured drive up the cost of health care by using hospital emergency rooms as their source of primary care?  How about the one where the overall health of the nation's populace will improve if we just implement universal care?  Robert J. Samuelson, economist and columnist for The Washington Post, provides proof to the contrary.

Obama the Messianic President?  In case you have ever had any doubts about how The New York Times views President Obama, check out this photo illustration of the President with halo and cross.  I have no words for this one.

Surprise! Dept. of Health and Human Resources Reports that Obamacare Will Increase Costs

Care for a bit of light reading for a Friday evening?  Then check out the report issued yesterday by the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Resources.  The report addresses the version of Obamacare that has been presented by Sen. Harry Reid as a complete amendment (i.e., a replacement for) H.R. 3590 (the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009").  In a development that should not come as a surprise to anyone who has given the matter any thought, the Chief Actuary tells us that the Reid version of Obamacare will increase the cost of health care over the period from 2010 to 2019 to the tune of $234 Billion (see page 4).  Egads.

Senators Reid and Baucus, among others, have been telling us that their version of Obamacare will save money.  The Chief Actuary's report puts the lie to these statements.  And the report also brings to light some other matters that Sen. Reid doesn't want us to know, including:

• Certain components of the plan would produce expenditures so far in excess of receipts that the programs would not be sustainable.
• Additional demand for health services under the expanded Medicare component of the plan could not be met in the short term.
• The proposed reductions in Medicare reimbursement rates would also not be sustainable.

The Chief Actuary's report comes on top of the latest CNN/Gallup polling data which shows that an astounding 61% of Americans are now opposed to Obamacare, and only 22% of poll respondents believe that their families will personally receive any benefit if Obamacare becomes law.

Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi need to abandon this mess now.