Can This Health Care Bill Be Repealed?

Well, it has not passed yet. That's a good thing.  The question has come up about a spot in the monster bill that says the bill cannot be repealed in the future. That is partly correct. There is a mention of it "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection".

The section is found in the description of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board on page 1,020. In order to insert this, this legislation would be changing the Senate rules - (that this bill cannot be repealed) and that requires a two thirds majority vote in the Senate. So, if they insert this "non repealable" clause, they will need a two thirds vote. Not gonna get it.

There is even a question about whether this non repeal notion is even constitutional. The purpose of Senate rules like this is to prevent a tyrannical majority from stamping out the rights of future Congresses or minorities. That question should not even be coming up. But it is. Isn't our president an expert on constitutional law? Then Sen. Obama, who taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007 fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." Maybe that gives him the insight on how to progressively destroy, dilute, or undermine it.

So much for Democrats looking out for the rights of the minority. Oops. In this case the minority is the Republican Party and no matter what the numbers say, they cannot be a minority because they are Republican.

I hate the double standards in politics. Get ready to repeal the bill. It must be repealed if it passes. It will be repealed if it passes.

Great video of Senator DeMint on that issue:

"Buy In" and Public Option are "OUT" ?

So the exact language of a Public Option is out. So is the buy in for Medicare for 55 - 64. Another failed amendment was the one that would allow us to buy prescription meds from other countries. But what is buried in the language of this zillion page bill? For sure we know that these three elements remain:

1. You cannot be rejected for health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. And,

2. Your insurance company cannot drop you out of the blue. And,

3. You will be charged a fine if you do not carry health insurance.

Obama and the Dems still claim the bill will be deficit neutral, will result in lower premiums for all, and will lower costs.

This does not compute. The numbers I mean. For example, why have health insurance companies rejected people for pre existing conditions? Cost. If the insurance companies were required to cover those who already have costly conditions, they would have to . . . . . raise the premiums to cover the anticipated costs. So who will help with those costs? Taxpayers. Will the already ill be able to afford those premiums anyway? Likely not. If you think $500 or $600 monthly premiums are high, just imagine what my health insurance premium would be if I tried to go out and buy a policy today (Stage 4 Renal Cell Carcinoma). Since they would not be able to reject me, they would have to charge thousands of dollars a month to cover a small part of my medical bills.

And what about healthy 20 and 30 something people? Probably would rather pay the fine than pay premiums. So they are still not covered. Right?

Still not adequately addressed are Tort Reform, buying health insurance across state lines, and cost control.

This bill is too costly, will drive more Doctors out of practice, and will result in less available care. Don't pass the bill.

Great video interview with Steve Forbes:

What If The Government Ran Health Care?

Plenty of pundits are predicting what our nation's health care system would be like if the government was in charge of it.

In this brief note, just consider our government's track record of running other public services. And consider their cost.

Amtrack? United States Postal Service? Military procurement?

No matter what costs are forecast, they have always cost more when the government does it. Way more. Health care would be no different. Instead of a flu shot at the local drug store costing you $10 to $20 - by the time the multi layered system delivered it to you it would cost you $100 in taxes.

Why did that famous $800 hammer cost $800? Production limits, tough specifications, hundreds of people developing, producing, administering, and delivering the hammer, accounting for the hammers, analyzing the hammers, hiring a staff to study the hammer performance, commissioning a panel to see if we really need the hammer, conducting a congressional investigation into the waste fraud and corruption in the hammer development cycle, and more.

Maybe we should just buy each doctor a hammer and have them hit everyone in the head in the fall.