Refuse to be nannied? Then get ready to be sued.

November 18, 2010

This quote is part of a longer article on why the author won’t ever vote for Mitt Romney for president until he admits that RomneyCare was a mistake, but there’s a clip that is relevant to our future under Romneycare’s national cousin, ObamaCare. Mitt’s bad medicine:

No, this is all about policy, specifically Romneycare – which has thus far been the Big Dig of health care, except costs have risen faster.

Obamacare has the benefit of having not yet been fully implemented. It’s already hurting the economy and costing people their jobs, but the worst has yet to arrive. Well the Romneycare disaster is already upon us.

The highest health insurance costs, the highest medical costs and the fastest rising costs. Massachusetts has them all, thanks to Romney. And they’re getting worse.

Meanwhile the Herald reported yesterday that the folks at the beloved Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector created under Romneycare are “cracking down on more than 3,000 residents who are fighting state fines, and has even hired a private law firm to force the health insurance scofflaws to pay penalties of up to $2,000 a year.”

Big Brother is watching – and suing – you.

Emphasis added.

The same is almost inevitable under ObamaCare, because its universal coverage provisions require universal subscription, either through buying one of the government-approved (and more expensive) plans, or by paying a tax penalty fine for refusing to buy a plan. That’s the infamous individual mandate, which takes the unprecedented step of requiring citizens, as a condition for merely living, to engage in an economic activity whether they want to or not – and punishes you if you refuse. And it is unconstitutional.

But, the government has to have this money in order for ObamaCare to even have a snowball’s chance of working. It must take money from the more healthy, younger portion of the workforce that won’t need as much insurance to subsidize universal coverage for the remainder, which is likely to need more frequent and more expensive care. (Rationing comes into this, too, but that’s a separate issue.)

Thus, as costs increase under ObamaCare (and even the government says they will), pressure will mount to go after those who refuse to pay the fine,  as the article describes, and maybe even after those who game the system by paying the fine and then buying coverage only when they truly need it.

So, get ready. Not only will Uncle Sam tell you what kind of insurance you must buy and at what price, but he’ll probably sue you if you don’t play along.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Thugocracy in action, health-care division – UPDATED!

September 10, 2010

So, the whole point of ObamaCare (well, one of the points) is to put private insurance companies out of business and pave the way for single-payer national health care:

And yet, when those same targeted private insurance companies complain about ObamaCare and raise rates to meet the new costs it imposes, the President’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, gets annoyed and tells them to shut up and take it, or they’ll be put out of business even sooner:

President Barack Obama’s top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won’t tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.

“There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.

“Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections,” Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They’d lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide.

In other words, company executives who dare exercise their First Amendment rights to speak the truth about the harm ObamaCare will do to their firms will… get hurt.

For some strange reason, I’m picturing Frank Nitti, backed by a couple of his goons, in an insurance CEO’s office looking around and saying “Nice company youse got here. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

Must be a coincidence on my part.

LINKS: Ed Morrissey see this as evidence that the entire administration is peevish, not just the President.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

UPDATE: Irony alert – The GAO says Secretary Sebelius herself is misleading Medicare recipients:

The Government Accountability Office says a Medicare mailer sent out by Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of Health and Human Services, to Medicare recipients on the new health-care law isn’t accurate.

In fact, according to the GAO, the brochure, which cost $18 million in taxpayer dollars to publish and emanated from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, presented a view of the health reform law that is “not universally shared,” that it “overstated the benefits” of health reform,” and that it failed to note the possibility of less generous Medicare benefits and higher costs.

While the GAO cleared the administration of putting together a purely partisan or propagandizing brochure, it was nonetheless critical of its content.

Will this mean she has to put herself out of business?  Confused

(via Gabriel Malor on Twitter)


Maybe you should rephrase that, Madame Secretary?

August 31, 2010

When a majority of those surveyed believe that “socialist” is an accurate description of President Obama, saying that opponents of his health-care program need to be reeducated is perhaps not the best choice of words:

In an interview before the latest Kaiser results were released, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told ABC News that the sustained opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform efforts has mainly been a function of “misinformation.”

“Unfortunately there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio on Monday.

With several vulnerable House Democrats now touting their votes against the bill, and Republicans running on repeal of the law, Sebelius said “misinformation given on a 24/7 basis” has led to the enduring opposition nearly six months after the lengthy debate ended in Congress.

“We have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.

Get it? Opposition can’t be based on a principled objection to a statist takeover of the health-care system, the insertion of federal bureaucrats into the most intimate decisions about one’s medical care, or the tremendous economic costs this “reform” imposes. Nope, it’s got to be “misinformation” fed to gullible rubes, who need “reeducating.”

Presumably again and again until they get it right.

I assume Secretary Sebelius is unaware of the disturbing associations “reeducation” brings to mind, such as the reeducation camps in Soviet Russia, Maoist China (especially during the Cultural Revolution), and Vietnam, to name just a few totalitarian hell-holes. Now, obviously she didn’t mean “put them all in camps and subject them to reprogramming as in Clockwork Orange,” but the choice of words is unfortunate and culturally clueless.

It’s also revealing, because it shows once again the arrogance and condescension toward the common people that lays behind the progressive-statist mindset: “Government experts know what’s best for you, Citizen peasant, so trust us and let us tell you why you’re wrong to oppose us.”

Come November 2nd, 2010, Secretary Sebelius and her colleagues will be the ones getting a real –and needed– reeducation.

COMPARISON: If you find yourself reminded of the votes a few years ago over the proposed EU constitution and the attempts to force nations that rejected it to vote again until they approved it, you’re not having hallucinations. The statist attitudes of our (Social) Democratic leaders and the European Union governing classes really are that alike.

(via Reason)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


ObamaCare’s impact on doctors

July 4, 2010

A video from the Heritage Foundation:

(via Big Government)


ObamaCare: the penalty for not buying insurance

June 19, 2010

After much back and forth over whether the penalty the government may assess for not carrying the proper health insurance constitutes a tax (and thus breaks Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on the middle class), the matter is settled.

According to President Obama’s own Department of Justice, it is.

So there.  Phbbbttt

(via Power Line)


Obamacare and unintended consequences

June 17, 2010

Late in the health care debate, Norma Desmond Nancy Pelosi famously said we’d have to pass the health care bill to learn what was in it. She was right. Since the Democrats rammed the bill through without allowing enough time for study and debate (or any time at all, really), we seen one lousy example after another of  “what’s in it.” Think you’ll get to keep your health plan, as the Lightworker promised?

Karl Rove says, think again:

In his brilliant exposition of why sweeping policy changes often have unintended consequences, the late sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote that leaders get things wrong when their “paramount concern with the foreseen immediate consequences excludes the consideration of further or other consequences” of their proposals. This leads policy makers to assert things that are false, wishing them to be true.

Which brings us to President Obama’s many claims about his health-care reform. Take his oft-expressed statement that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. That sounds good—but perverse incentives in his new law will cause most Americans to lose their existing insurance.

This was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform’s effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.

This reality is settling in at businesses across America. A Midwestern contractor told me he pays $588,000 for health insurance for 70 employees, contributing up to $8,400 a year for a family’s coverage. If he stops providing health insurance, he’ll pay $2,000 per employee in fines, and the first 40 employees are exempt from fines altogether.

It’s also dawning on employees that they will lose their coverage. Some will blame management; many more will blame those who wrote this terrible legislation.

It dawned on a lot of people before the bill was passed, albeit with no thanks to the mainstream media, but it didn’t matter: the (Social) Democratic majority in Congress gave their (Social) Democratic president what he wanted, ramming this crap sandwich of a bill through Congress against the express will of the majority of the people. The promises about cutting costs and keeping the health insurance you’re happy with were all garbage. All of them.

And now we’re finding all the roaches under the health care carpet. (And there’s never just one.)

Employees who blame their employers are foolish; they’re only doing what is economically rational under the given set of incentives. The people to blame are the President of the United States and every single Democrat in Congress, even the so-called moderates, because their votes to elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker and Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader facilitated this mess.

Read the whole article and file this away for next November:


When you pass a bill no one has read…

April 13, 2010

Stuff like this is bound to happen:

Baffled by Health Plan? So Are Some Lawmakers

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

(…)

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

Schadenfreude is sweet, and sometimes there is justice in the universe.  Devil

And this quote just begs a “So NOW you’re asking??” response:

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

A lot of us were raising that and similar questions for nearly a year before this monstrosity passed, but then we had “leaders” like Congressman John Conyers (D-MyWifeIsAFelon) tell us they didn’t need to read the bill:

I can’t wait to watch as they scramble to fix this.

(via Exurban League)

LINKS: More at Hot Air, Fausta, and Sister Toldjah.


Forget the iPad, you need the O-Pad

April 6, 2010

Upset you couldn’t afford an oversized iPod that can’t take pictures, multi-task, make calls, and comes with no USB ports? Then it’s a good thing for you that President Obama plans to share the geek-wealth; his administration will soon bring into production (and give you for free, FREE, FREE!!) the o-so-cool ObamaPad. Tito’s queued up the first video review:

Any resemblance to the recent health-care reform process is purely coincidental.

(via Hot Air)


Henry Waxman and the knowledge problem

April 5, 2010

Let’s get past the obvious, first: Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is a statist thug. He’s upset that corporations have begun reporting the very real costs they’ll incur under ObamaCare, even though they’re required to do so by law, so he’s scheduled show trials hearings at which to chastise them. After all, health-care reform was supposed to bring only good to America, wasn’t it?

Trouble is, as Glenn Reynolds points out, would-be statists like Waxman always run up against a brick wall: there’s too much information for them to process efficiently in order to run a command economy, so they regularly face surprises like the corporate announcements. Call it the knowledge problem:

Economist Friedrich Hayek explained in 1945 why centrally controlled “command economies” were doomed to waste, inefficiency, and collapse: Insufficient knowledge. He won a Nobel Prize. But it turns out he was righter than he knew.

In his “The Use of Knowledge In Society,” Hayek explained that information about supply and demand, scarcity and abundance, wants and needs exists in no single place in any economy. The economy is simply too large and complicated for such information to be gathered together.

Any economic planner who attempts to do so will wind up hopelessly uninformed and behind the times, reacting to economic changes in a clumsy, too-late fashion and then being forced to react again to fix the problems that the previous mistakes created, leading to new problems, and so on.

Market mechanisms, like pricing, do a better job than planners because they incorporate what everyone knows indirectly through signals like price, without central planning.

Thus, no matter how deceptively simple and appealing command economy programs are, they are sure to trip up their operators, because the operators can’t possibly be smart enough to make them work.

In this case, Waxman and his progressive-statist allies didn’t realize that imposing vast new regulations would trip other regulations that forced the revelation of information harmful to their political position – and perhaps their political careers. As Reynolds points out, there’s a silver lining in this: as Waxman, Pelosi, and Obama keep trying to create a command economy, they’ll step on more and more of these mines because they can never have all the information they need. These will serve as regular reminders to the people that government that’s too big simply can’t do the job and should be shrunk down to size.

The dark cloud behind that silver lining, however, is that getting there is likely to be painful.

FURTHERMORE: Dan Riehl discusses the mainstream media’s role in abetting the Waxmans of the world:

When news broke of ATT and others promptly announcing write downs after ObamaCare passed, only the Wall Street Journal shed much light on what was really taking place. And they only did that several graphs down. Most mass media outlets simply let the narrative stand that, government passed a law to help the little guy, now big business Republicans have hit back by citing earnings woes, yadda, yadda. Whether due to rushing, bias, or simple incompetence, as the story played out across America, the mainstream media did less to inform the country, than they did to inflame it, while feeding into whatever one’s preconceived notions might have already been.

It’s going to be hard to expose the knowledge problem unless the major media, on which most of the public depends, starts doing its job and stops being a facilitator.

LINKS: More at Hot Air.


Seal of Approval: ObamaCare endorsed by Cuba and the UN!

March 25, 2010

Well, this should sell our new statist health system to the masses of bitter-clingers like nothing else could: kind words and congratulations from the United Nations and communist Cuba! Hope and Change are here at last!

First, a pat on the head from Turtle Bay by way of Geneva:

“The people in this country and their leaders are courageous. That (healthcare reform) is an unprecedented achievement,” WHO Director General Margaret Chan said.

She was speaking to reporters after a lecture in which she argued that unrestricted market forces were limited as a means of redressing imbalances in global health care.

(…)

Chan has made clear her view that governments and global organizations such as WHO should make a case for market regulation to deliver more equitable health benefits.

“Market forces, all by themselves, will not solve social problems. That is why public health needs to be concerned,” said Chan in a lecture at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The hardest thing … is persuading world leaders or ministers … that health concerns can, in some instances, be more important than economic interests. Economic growth is not, after all, the be-all, end-all, cure-all,” said Chan, whose organization is based in Geneva.

The World Health Organization is the same organization that helped spread panic during the bird-flu outbreak of 2005-06 and the recent swine flu non-epidemic. Given this lack of sober judgment and the fact that they are part of the massively corrupt UN –the home of Oil-for-Food, Cash for Kim, and peacekeeper rape, among other badges of honor– it’s not surprising that one of their avid statists would endorse a massive expansion of statism. As Nile Gardiner put it:

It is hard to think of a more embarrassing endorsement of President Obama’s health care reform bill than that offered this week by the United Nations. The UN, probably the most corrupt and ineffective multilateral body on the face of the earth, which devotes much of its time trying to undermine American global power, has officially given its blessing to Barack Obama’s hugely controversial and unpopular legislation. The United Nations is increasingly disliked in the eyes of the American public, and continues to empower some of the most odious anti- American tyrannies across the world.

But wait, Nile! It does get more embarrassing! The Washington Post reports that last Sunday’s passage of the health-care reform act received a big thumbs-up from no less than Fidel Castro, himself:

It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

“We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama’s) government,” Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president’s hand against lobbyists and “mercenaries.”

Before anyone takes Castro at his word (Hint: He’s a murdering creep), perhaps they should look at the reality behind Cuba’s health care and then breathe a sigh of relief that it’s taken us this long to start down that same path.

I bet you won’t be seeing these testimonials anywhere on the White House web site, anytime soon.


“Control the people?” Dingell’s gaffe

March 24, 2010

Michael Kinsley once said that the definition of a “gaffe” is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Michigan representative John Dingell (D-MI) may well have committed one when he said during a radio interview that ObamaCare’s benefits will take time to implement because it takes a while to control the people:

Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.

And in case you don’t believe your lying eyes, here’s audio, courtesy of Hot Air:

At least he’s an honest statist, unlike his leader in the White House. Even if he didn’t mean to.

I’ll give Mr. Dingell half a point for being right about the Republicans: in the time they controlled Congress, they really did not do much to address problems in the health care system, thus ceding the issue to the Social Democrats*. However, it is an absolute untruth to say they have presented no plan during the current debate nor offered any cooperation. Republicans regularly asked to be included in negotiations and drafting, but were mostly excluded in repeated acts of high-handed arrogance. Ironic, to say the least, given the Democrats used to whine about being cut out when Tom Delay was Republican Majority Leader.

And they have a plan. It has been available for months. It was presented ably at the so-called “health care summit” with the President and the congressional Social Democrats, particularly by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI). So, for Dingell to claim the conservatives have done nothing to help is … well, he either hasn’t been paying attention or he’s lying.

Maybe John will accidentally tell us the truth one day.

*(I’ve decided it’s wrong to refer to the Democrats as a “liberal, democratic party.” They are neither liberal in the classical sense of the phrase, nor are they really democratic these days. Instead, the Democratic Party is more of a statist, progressive party with much more in common with European social democratic parties. Hence it seems more accurate to call them “Social Democrats.” Or maybe “Progressive Statists,” as the mood takes me. Regardless, they’re sure not the Democratic Party anymore.)

LINKS: Sister Toldjah.


Guess who’s exempted from ObamaCare?

March 22, 2010

Call this another example of how crappy process leads to crappy legislation, but congressional committee staff and the staff of leadership offices -the staff serving the Office of the Speaker, for example- are not bound by the health care act passed last night. Per The New Ledger:

But as with a lot of legislative matters, the devil is in the details — or in this case, the definitions. As anyone who’s worked on Capitol Hill knows, the personal office staff for a member is governed by different rules than those who work on committees and in the leadership offices. It appears from the way this language is written that those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).

  • (ii) DEFINITIONS- In this section:
  • (I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS- The term `Member of Congress’ means any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
  • (II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF- The term `congressional staff’ means all full-time and part-time employees employed by the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC or outside of Washington, DC.

According to the Congressional Research Service, this definition of staff will only apply to those staffers employed within a member’s “personal office” — meaning that it will absolutely not apply to committee staff members, and may not apply to leadership staff.

This problem was acknowledged earlier in the process — last year, Senator Grassley tried to repair it, but he was rebuffed.

As Speaker Pelosi said a few weeks ago, it’s only after this legislation is passed that we’ll truly find out what’s in it.

As TNL points out, the staff who created this exemption were also the ones heavily involved in writing the bill itself. Pretty neat, huh? On the one hand creating the greatest health-care reform EVER!1!1! by which we are all bound whether we want it or not, while on the other carving out a little loophole for yourself. And, of course, with the majority hell-bent on ramming this bill through as fast as possible, there was no time to vet it for just this kind of Easter egg.

It’s great to be the ones who writes the rules, ain’t it? Even the masters are bound by it, but not the servants themselves.

Fools on the one hand, weasels on the other.

One more to be entered into the Book of Grudges for November.

(via Instapundit)

LINKS: Hot Air notices.


Don’t give up

March 21, 2010

So, the House is almost certain to pass this monstrosity of a health-care bill tonight after making an utter travesty of legislative process and representative democracy.  But, as the great Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” Power Line lists some reasons for optimism. Here’s one:

The health care bill’s taxes will go into effect promptly, but its substantive provisions are, for the most part, deferred for four years. This means that we have plenty of time to repeal the legislation. Sure, it will take a new Congress and new President. But repealing this disaster of a bill will by a rallying cry for the American people for years to come. Moreover, even if the Republicans only take over the House in November, and not the Senate, won’t it be possible to throw roadblocks in the way of the bill’s implementation? Won’t budget appropriations be necessary to sustain the various federal tentacles the bill seeks to establish? What will happen if the House simply refuses to fund them?

Go read the rest, and take heart. Even now, attorney generals in several states are preparing legal challenges to push back against Leviathan. The odds aren’t good, but one or more may hit a bulls-eye and gut the bill or have it thrown out altogether.

Fight on.


When all else fails, cry “RAAAAACISM!”

March 21, 2010

Yesterday there was a demonstration at the Capitol Building in DC against the possible passage of ObamaCare today. Turnout was pretty good for something called at the last minute, and the crowd was passionate. Reflecting the majority of likely voters, they were there to say, in no uncertain terms, that they do not want Congress to nationalize 17% of the American economy, make massive cuts to Medicare, drive doctors from the profession and destroy jobs, and have a real cost north of two trillion dollars.

So, how do the Democrats and their media allies respond? Intelligent debate? A discussion of the merits of the health care proposal in order to sell Americans on the idea?

Oh, don’t be silly. The correct response is “c) Bully your opponents by making false claims of racism.”

The incident The Huffington Post so breathlessly reports (and spread uncritically by Alan Fram of the AP) happened when members of the House walked past demonstrators into the Capitol. Supposedly, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were called “niggers” and Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) was called a “faggot.” And while the HuffPo piece can find a sign that clearly crossed the line (slide one in the slide-show at the bottom of the linked article), they can produce no proof of the name-calling in question. On the contrary, videos of the incident clearly show demonstrators booing the Representatives and chanting “Kill the bill,” but there’s nary an epithet to be heard. Tito’s queued up the footage, you make the call:

And, for another view:

Now, don’t you think that, with all the video cameras in the hands of professionals and amateurs that were at the event, someone would have captured those moments of bigoted hate? Until someone can provide proof, it seems more likely that this is just another attempt to intimidate, smear, and distract by those who know the facts are against them.

Saul Alinsky would approve.

LINKS: More at Big Government and Power Line.


How ObamaCare will shaft the middle-class

March 18, 2010

Quote of the day, from Scott Gottlieb:

The hardest hit won’t be those earning more than $250,000 a year–the group that he [Obama] says needs to “pay their fair share.” Rather, it’s families whose combined annual income is around $100,000 who could be crushed under this plan.

These folks will be too “rich” to qualify for ObamaCare’s subsidies, but probably too poor to easily afford the pricey insurance that the president’s plan forces them to buy.

Many of these $100K families will be obliged to buy a policy costing an average of $14,700 for the mid-level, “silver” health plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates. After income taxes, they’ll be spending almost a quarter of their net income for health insurance.

Be sure to read the rest, and then call your congresscritter’s office.

(via Obi’s Sister, Potluck,  and NRO, in that order.)


Democrats approve shredding of Constitution

March 18, 2010

I wonder if they played the music from the shower-scene in Psycho while they did it?

Dems defeat GOP effort to force separate vote on Senate health bill

In a 222-203 vote, Democrats beat back a GOP resolution offered by Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.) that would have forced lawmakers to vote on the Senate healthcare bill separately from the series of fixes they hope to make to that legislation.

All Republican lawmakers who voted opposed the measure, which had the effect of ending the GOP’s effort to force a vote. They were joined by 28 Democrats, who broke with party members on the vote.

222 Democrats supported the measure, though, meaning enough to proceed. Three members of both parties did not vote.

Republicans had hoped for the separate vote to get Democratic lawmakers on record on the Senate bill, which includes some provisions on abortion, excise taxes, and other issues that House lawmakers find distasteful.

As this stand, Democrats plan a vote on a rule on Sunday that would make changes to the Senate-passed bill while deeming the original legislation to have passed the House.

Republicans have decried the measure as extra-parliamentary and possibly unconstitutional. Democrats have defended the process as well within the scope of regular congressional action, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that President Barack Obama would sign a bill passed through such a process.

For background on this utter travesty, see my earlier posts on the Slaughter Rule. Michelle Malkin has the list of Democrats who still have some constitutional scruples, while Hot Air has the list of on-the-fence Democrats who voted to enable Pelosi and Slaughter’s tyrannical end-run.

Remember their names in November. Not one of these jerks should ever be elected to anything, again.

LINKS: More at Obi’s Sister.


Only the beginning…

March 18, 2010

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio admits on Rachel Maddow’s show what only a fool cannot see: that passage of ObamaCare is only the first step toward single-payer, nationalized health care, in which we will all be wards of the State:

MADDOW:  Should we not expect the public option anytime soon?

BROWN:  No.  Just—Rachel, you know history.  I‘ve seen your show enough to know that you understand sort of how progressive—the progressive movements worked.  When we passed, what, Social Security was passed in the ‘30s.  It wasn‘t all that great at the time.  When Medicare was passed, it was good, but not great.

… That‘s what happens here.  This—you can bet that a lot of us are going to introduce a public option bill.

As soon the president signs this, we‘ll start working towards it. It may take a year.  It may take five years. There are a lot of things we‘re going to do to continue to improve this system.

We obviously don‘t give up on it.  We don‘t get everything we want.  But we work—we look how this bill works, we look how this new law works, and we continue to try to improve it.

This bill is the wedge to open the door to European-style socialization and the transformation of Americans from free citizens to infantilized dependents. It is a Trojan Horse, and we must not let it through the gates.

RELATED: A new study shows that, rather than creating jobs as Nancy Pelosi claims, will cost the American economy as much as 700,000 jobs.  Meanwhile, a survey of family physicians claims that perhaps up to 46% will feel compelled to leave medicine should ObamaCare pass.

So, they’re going to forcibly guarantee insurance to more people while driving doctors out of the profession, thus increasing the workload for those who remain… And we’re supposed to believe this will result in a better medical system??

Care to buy a bridge?


Paul Ryan denounces procedural farce

March 16, 2010

I wrote a few days ago about the anti-constitutional “rule” Representative Louise Slaughter plans to use to enable passage of the widely unpopular Senate health-care reform plan without actually having to vote on it. But, let’s face it, folks: this is just the latest in a series of corrupt and anti-democratic efforts by the Democratic(?) Party to ram down the throats of the American people a bill that a passionate majority doesn’t want.

Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan (R), who had already impressed observers with his performance at the so-called “health care summit,” roundly denounces the entire farcical process in his opening statement this week as the House Budget Committee considers the Senate bill:

This guy is good. He’s sharp, well-spoken, and has a command of both the facts and the political philosophy at stake here. Whatever the outcome, Mr. Ryan is one to keep an eye on.

RELATED: Sister Toldjah is in love. More at Hot Air.


Monday links fiesta!

March 15, 2010

I’ve got a bunch of interesting links that I’ve been letting sit for one reason or another, so here they are in a bunch. Pick and choose the ones that most interest you!

War and the Jihad

Iraq held a national election for a new parliament last week. In spite of terrorist attacks that killed dozens in an attempt to derail the elections, roughly 60% of the electorate turned out. (Lazy American voters, hang your heads in shame.) Now that a few days have passed, the results are in and they look encouraging. Perhaps George Bush’s “mission accomplished” moment was only premature, not wrong? Regardless, congratulations to the Iraqi politicians, security forces, and the people themselves for flipping millions of purple fingers at the fascists.

At Threat Matrix, Bill Roggio relays a congressman’s concerns about a growing threat from another jihadist group: Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Something you will rarely read on this blog, in this case regarding Geert Wilders: Charles Krauthammer is wrong. More at Jihad Watch and from Roger L. Simon.

More from Wilders, on his controversial call to ban the Qur’an in Holland.

Foreign Affairs

Barack Obama finally gives up trying to force a dictator on Honduras.

I Can’t Believe She Said This

Nancy Pelosi on why we have to pass ObamaCare:

You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

It’s not that she thinks we’re stupid. It’s that she thinks we’re all kindergartners. (More from ST)

More Health Care

Shawn Tully on the insane accounting needed to make ObamaCare look even barely presentable. (via Blue Crab Boulevard)

At Last

At Big Government, “Josie Wales” argues the constitutional case against the progressives who dominate the Democratic Party and control our government.

That’s all, folks!


The Democrats’ suicide pact

March 13, 2010

Political cartoonist Michael Ramirez on the (Social) Democrats’ obsession with passing ObamaCare at all costs:

(via Power Line)