Can This Health Care Bill Be Repealed?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  The question has come up about a spot in the monster bill that says the bill cannot be repealed in the future.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 In order to insert this, this legislation would be changing the Senate rules - (that this bill cannot be repealed) and that requires a two thirds majority vote in the Senate.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 It must be repealed if it passes. It will be repealed if it passes.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:

So Much For Transparency

The final details about the health care reform bill are now being worked out - in private. No cameras. No reporters. No Republicans. No Transparency.

Somewhere in the back of my mind this morning came the old quote "Men loved the darkness because their deeds were evil".

Why, I wonder, are the final negotiations going on in private? Because Obama and the Dems do not want the country to see who is getting the deals for their votes. They are not hammering out the details. They are bribing fence riding Senators and Congressmen for their vote on the bill. Obama's Chicago mob is more interested is passing something than doing what is right for the country.

That's why CSpan's letter went unanswered. That's why Pelosi is quibbling with the truth about being/not being transparent. Sure, the cameras were rolling when they were discussing the nuts and bolts of how the bill will work. She and her gang from the Patch, Terror Town, Boys Town, or Lakeview just don't want the public to know just how corrupt the process is.

Votes for Dollars. That's what it is all about.

Votes for Dollars.

Get ready to push for the repeal the bill movement.

Who Voted Yay and Nay on the Senate Bill Ending Debate

Here's a link to the official Senate record of how they voted.

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---60


Akaka (D-HI)  Baucus (D-MT)  Bayh (D-IN)  Begich (D-AK)  Bennet (D-CO)  Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)  Brown (D-OH)  Burris (D-IL)  Byrd (D-WV)  Cantwell (D-WA)  Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)  Casey (D-PA)  Conrad (D-ND)  Dodd (D-CT)  Dorgan (D-ND)  Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)  Feinstein (D-CA)  Franken (D-MN)  Gillibrand (D-NY)  Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)  Inouye (D-HI)  Johnson (D-SD)  Kaufman (D-DE)  Kerry (D-MA)  Kirk (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)  Kohl (D-WI)  Landrieu (D-LA)  Lautenberg (D-NJ)  Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)  Lieberman (ID-CT)  Lincoln (D-AR)  McCaskill (D-MO)  Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)  Mikulski (D-MD)  Murray (D-WA)  Nelson (D-FL)  Nelson (D-NE)  Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)  Reid (D-NV)  Rockefeller (D-WV)  Sanders (I-VT)  Schumer (D-NY)  Shaheen (D-NH)
Specter (D-PA)  Stabenow (D-MI)  Tester (D-MT)  Udall (D-CO)  Udall (D-NM)  Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)  Whitehouse (D-RI)  Wyden (D-OR)

Following a strict party line vote, the Senate voted to end debate on the Health Care Reform Bill. Once they vote to approve it, they will send it to be combined with the House version. Nobody really knows what will be in the final bill and whether or not the final version will ever make it to the President to sign.

Some on the fence were paid off to get their votes. Most of the negotiation never involved any Republican Senators. Neither was it transparent like Obama promised.

This bill does not accomplish what the President said it should. It will cost way too much, drive doctors and hospitals out of business, increase wait time to see a doctor, diminish the quality of care, delay care, and increase premiums for everyone.  I know that is contrary to what the President promises, but based on what we have all seen so far, his promises cannot be believed.

Democrats Win Over Nebraska Senator with $100M

Great for Nebraska. What about the rest of us?

Here's how the Dems got Nelson to go along with the Senate version of the bill:

"Nelson secured several other concessions from Reid, including a guarantee that the federal government will fully cover the cost of expanding Nebraska’s Medicaid program. All other states have to partially pay for a Medicaid expansion to admit all adults earning up to 130 percent of poverty level, if they haven’t done so already. Aides said the deal was worth under $100 million for Nebraska over the next decade - not much in the context of an $900 billion bill. But at a time when most state budgets are deep in the red, it’s a huge political coup for Nelson." from the Boston Globe.

Is the word "honor" in the oath these knuckleheads take?

So it is looking like the Senate version of the bill will pass. Next, combining the House version and the Senate version.

The final redaction will look like neither. Again, the Frankenstien bill.

"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:

Senate Health Care Reform Debate - Harry Reid (D) NV

So if you can't beat them with the facts, sling mud that's irrelevant. That's what Mr Reid from Nevada did on the Senate floor today. Chastising the Republicans for what he said was their call to "slow down" he compared it with to civil rights/slavery and women's right to vote.

Will this kind of rhetoric get any Republicans to vote the Democrat's way?  Will it sway moderate Democrats to abandon their committments to refusing tax payer dollars for abortion? Will it convince anyone that a public option is in the country's best interest?

Amendments to the bill keep coming up and getting defeated. Yesterday the Ensign Amendment - putting limits on lawyers' fees on contingency cases - failed. Even the Lincoln Amendment, proposed by a Democrat, failed. It would have limited the ability of insurance companies to deduct executive pay from their taxes. That was a move designed to punish the private insurance sector and pave the way for a total government takeover of the insurance industry. Surprised the Dems could not get that one passed.

Here's the clip of Sen Reid's lame argument:

Democrats and the Health Care Debate - What to Believe?

This weekend the Democrats are saying on the one hand - $400 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for the health care reform bill, and on the other hand - These cuts will strengthen Medicare by eliminating waste, overpayments, and inefficiency.

Is it just me or is there a total lack of logic and reason in this approach? Haven't we been trying to reduce waste and overpayments for years? How will cutting $400 Billion from Medicare make it more efficient? How will cutting Medicare by $400 Billion make it less wasteful or prevent overpayments? Maybe there will be less money in the system to waste in the first place but in the end, there will be less money to go around for an already strained program. That translates into longer waits for patients, higher copays, less care, fewer diagnostic tests, denied coverage, and fewer doctors.

Health Care Reform and MediCare

Senior Citizens should keep an eye on the debate and the bill. The bill presently cuts many areas of Medicare. One of the cuts includes payments to doctors. Some amendments are in the works to postpone the cuts to doctors providing care to Medicare patients. But if payments to doctors are cut, the unintended consequence would be an exodus of doctors providing care to seniors. Fewer doctors, longer waits for appointments and more out of pocket expenses for those who can least afford it.

The Medicare Rights Center, a non-profit consumer service organization, has reported that eight states are having a tough time finding doctors who will accept Medicare patients. This started in 2002 when payments to doctors were cut by 5.4 percent. Those states include Texas, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, and New Mexico. The survey done by the Center said that the reason doctors gave the patients for not accepting them was the lower payments.

Would Universal Health Care in the US be . . . NICE?

NICE, also known as National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, is the UK's system for determing the guidelines for medical practitioners as to how various conditions should be treated and whether or not a particular treatment should be funded. This layer of government decides if your medical condition merits treatment and what kinds of treatment. If they decide you get the treatment, it is given to you by the government system, paid for by the taxes you'd pay as a citizen of the UK. Yes, to be eligible you must be a citizen.

Up until very recently, the cancer drug Sutent, was prohibited by NICE. If you had renal cell carcinoma or other cancers, you were not allowed to take Sutent - the "gold standard" for treating RCC. Previous to Sutent, patients with kidney cancer had no hope. Traditional chemo is not very effective against it and Sutent is a kidney cancer patient's best hope of surviving.

What if? What if our government takes over health care management and decides that Sutent is just too expensive to provide to those in the public option?  That would be a swift death sentence for those who, like me, are a Stage IV cancer patient.

I hope the health care reform bill being debated soon in the Senate gets the swift death it deserves.