It’s not going to happen
Published Mon, Mar 15 2010 4:38 PM
Paul Jacob suggests that Congress send the full text of the “health care reform” bill to every voter, and that every voter must pass a 500 question multiple choice quiz on its contents before they move ahead. Imagining for a moment that our Congress would agree to such a thing, it would never happen. But let’s look first at why Congress won’t ever agree to this.
First of all, our President has essentially said that even though he knows that “his” bill is overwhelmingly unpopular he’s going to see to it that it becomes law anyway. The Democratic Party’s leadership knows that they simply can’t get this bill passed through the normal process. So they’re willing to invent an abnormal process to get it done.
First, there’s the “reconciliation” process. You know the one – the one we were told on the night of the “health care reform summit” that nobody was talking about – only to hear about it the very next Monday as the way the bill was going to get passed.
So what exactly do the Democratic Party’s leaders mean by “reconciliation” anyway? We certainly aren’t talking about the bill drafted by and passed by the House of Representatives. That died in the Senate. So we must be talking about the bill drafted by and passed by the Senate right?
Isn’t that bill filled with taxes? And deferred health care “benefits” in order to pass the sham test of revenue neutrality? Doesn’t something smell fishy about that to you?
Need I remind you of these words? All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Oh well, I know that the Democratic Party leadership doesn’t consider such questions to be serious – after all, it’s only a question about honoring the plain language and meaning of our Constitution. That’s nothing “serious” after all.
So, already our esteemed elected Representatives and Senators have ignored one of our basic founding principles in order to move their agenda forward. Not that that’s anything new.
We are told that the reconciliation process is meant to overcome the objections of Democratic Representatives to the content of the Senate bill. Democratic Representatives are encouraged to vote for and pass the Senate bill and that it will then be returned to the Senate where their objections will be dealt with through “reconciliation”. We’re told that this will short-circuit debate in the Senate only requiring a simple majority to pass – despite Senate rules that require 60 percent of the quorum to approve ending debate.
This is of course true – to a point. If the House were to agree to the Senate bill under these terms it most certainly would cut short debate in the Senate – there wouldn’t need to be any. If the House should pass the Senate bill unchanged there would be no need for the bill to return to the Senate, nor would there be any need for a conference committee to resolve any differences between the bill as passed by the Senate and the bill as passed by the House. Both houses of the Congress having passed the bill it would immediately go before the President.
Democratic Representatives would have no recourse. Since they would have voted for the bill “as-is”, they would have nothing to say about it becoming law. After all, they would have voted for it. Reconciliation is nothing but a sham and a diversion. It diverts attention from what’s really happening, and it’s a shameless attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and the members of the House of Representatives.
That the Democratic Party’s leadership is willing to perpetrate this sham is indicative that they really don’t care about the will of the people – or for that member even the will of the elected members of their own party. They really only want to pass this bill – even if it means that they lose their majority in the House of Representatives and their supermajority in the Senate (which is already lost thanks to the election of Scott Brown). More on that in a bit
Think about that for a minute. Then return to the original question – why in Hell would the leadership of the Democratic Party be willing to abandon their chances at getting this bill passed by putting it before the American voter? Especially with the requirement that the voters be able to demonstrate that they actually understand the bill? Remember the words of the Speaker of the House? “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. She doesn’t want us to know what’s in it – until it’s too late.
Her own words damn the Democratic Leadership and the hidden agenda behind this bill. “Prevention, prevention, prevention -- it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.” Let that sink in for a moment.
Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership, together with a number of their constituents want to dictate your diet for you, as well as many of your other day to day decisions. This isn’t about health care. It’s about dictating your choices to you – backed by the iron fist of the government.
Even so-called moderate or “blue dog” Democrats have been infected with this way of thinking. I recently attended a question and answer session with one of Utah’s Congressional Representatives. He sounded oh so reasonable, talking about managing costs, and the like – until he made the statement that it would be necessary to regulate behavior in order to keep costs low. He may be a “fiscal conservative” – but in the end he’s just another Statist seeking to take away our liberties.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility and freedom? Just because a behavior carries with it associated risks doesn’t mean that it should be prohibited. Drinking alcoholic beverages for example carries with it the risk of cirrhosis of the liver – not to mention the fact that drinking to excess can lead to an otherwise destroyed life. Alcoholics Anonymous doesn’t exist without reason. Still, in moderation drinking alcoholic beverages also has health benefits. Red wine for example has been associated with cardio-vascular health. Shouldn’t it be the individual’s responsibility to weigh the risks, benefits, and yes even pleasures associated with certain behaviors and make up his own mind?
And what if in some cases the risks turn into eventualities? The responsible individual will accept the consequences of risky behavior along with the potential rewards. If cirrhosis should develop for example it means a curtailed life span – unless medical care can be found – medical care which under our current system can be purchased at need but which might be denied in the name of “cutting costs” under the “health care reform” bill – with no option but to seek care outside the system.
No, the Democratic Party leadership has no interest in having the American voter understand their bill. It will never be presented to the voter – especially since the majority of informed voters want no part of it. But… if you want to really kill any chances of ever seeing this bill move forward – why just add Paul Jacob’s second criteria to this. Make Congress wait until every voter can pass a 500 question multiple choice quiz regarding the contents of the bill.
Do that and the bill will NEVER have a chance of passing. Why? Because a snowball has a better chance of surviving a millennium in Hell than the average American citizen would ever have of being able to pass that quiz. After all, this bill stands at a whopping 2,000 pages of convoluted legalese. By contrast, the Constitution of the United States of America is a mere 4,494 words long, or about four large sheets of parchment. The legislation is about 500 times as long as the Constitution – and the majority of American people can’t even base a basic civics quiz!
Oh, and remember I promised more on the Democratic Party leaderships’s willingness to give up their majorities? Think about it. Who benefits from an increasing large and bureaucratic state? Think about it seriously. If this “health care reform” bill passes, it will create a vast new entitlement at the federal level. The notion that “health care” is a “right” will be enshrined in federal law. Once the benefits finally kick in people will come to accept that they have a right to health care, and any effort by the Republicans – once the Democratic Party is out of power – to repeal this abomination will be cast in that light. The old playbook used time and again by the Democratic Party will once again be effective – because it will be true. Republicans really will want to take away your “right” to health-care. Never mind that what they really want is to return your liberty to you, and to eliminate the slavery that will result as health care workers become indentured servants to the masses.
No, Paul Jacob’s idea sounds nice, but it’s just not going to happen.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1422
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2010/3/15/1422.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
T.F. Stern responded with:
 | Mark Levine spent a considerable amount of time explaining the basics of constitutional law on the talk radio show this evening, much as you did here, All anyone could say, having a knowledge of the restrictions placed on the legislative process, an intentional slowing down process intended to protect individual rights as well as powers granted specifically to each state and to maintain control over the federal government; whew,,, is that the folks trying to push this health care package through have no intention of following constitutional law and they should all be impeached and quickly removed from office as they have betrayed their oaths of office. |
Layla responded with:
 | Hi Perry. Long time no see, or should I say read. Still in law school so I have been busy, but I had to return to blogging. I think it is an addiction, well, at least this one won't kill me and it's the only one I have thank God! But Obama's health care will kill us all if not make euphansia most popular and not just for the aged, but those terminally ill or those that the indentured slaves of healthcare reform deem not worthy of saving.
I do not believe his bill for health care can pass, but God help us all if it does.
In the meantime, drop by and take a peek around my sassy place! |
Layla responded with:
| Happy St. Patty's Day Perri! :) |
David responded with: Congresscritters couldn't pass a test on this bill
 | Forget having citizens pass a test on this bill. Congresscritters couldn't do it, were the test based on the actual content of the thing. Heck, neither Pelosi nor Reid could pass an honest test on its contents!
Even if it were a 100 question test and the first 50 were gimmes. |
David responded with:
| BTW, had you seen Andrew Napolitano's shirtcuff analysis of whether the State's court challenges of the bill will knock it down (or at least some of its most egregious constitutional violations)?
http://newsmax.com/Headline/Andrew-Napolitano-barack-obama/2010/03/26/id/354008?s=al&promo_code=9A73-1
Sadly,
"You're talking about 2018, which is eight years from now, before it is likely the Supreme Court will hear this." |
The Machiavellian responded with:
 | Exactly. This bill originated in the Senate, yet it raises taxes.
I've started to read the Anti-Federalist papers and some of their objections to the power given to the federal government are starting to sound reasonable.
Additionally, there are a number of remedies proposed in the AFP's that are just as reasonable, including the right to recall Representatives and Senators. |