Current Article

10 11 Reasons to Kill the Senate Bill [TWO Video Updates]

By Bronwyn's Harbor on December 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM in Current Affairs

(H/t to KR for the comment providing the link to this IOwnTheWorld image.)

UPDATE #1: At the end of this post, see a new video titled, “Insurance, Drug Companies Will Make Out Like Bandits.”

Original Post: Below, from Jane Hamsher, an independent-thinking progressive often seen on cable news commenting on the Obama presidency, are her top 10 reasons to oppose the Senate bill. She has given approval for her list to be shared with everyone, so go for it! As Jane points out, it is irrelevant whether we’re on the left or right: All of us agree that this legislation is a disaster.

UPDATE #2: JANE HAMSHER TODAY on Fox & Friends discussing her fight to “kill the bill”:

First, I’m adding an 11th reason via RedState.com blog: “We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare.” This means that a Senate super-majority will be required (nearly impossible to attain) to change those new laws that apply to “regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.”

Why does this matter so much?

“To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.” 67 votes! Can you imagine the Senate ever gathering up enough votes to overturn this travesty? Of course not. We are permanently, irrevocably screwed.

Now here’s Jane’s top 10 list. Below the fold you’ll also find a link to a post that backs up each and every point:

“Top 10 Reasons to Kill Senate Health Care Bill“

Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can’t afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won’t see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family’s insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.

Background information on each point:

Jane further advises us:

The Senate bill isn’t a “starter home,” it’s a sink hole. It needs to die so something else can take its place.

It doesn’t matter whether people are on the right or the left — once they understand the con job that’s about to be foist upon them, they agree.

That’s why Harry Reid and President Obama are trying to jam it through as fast as they can, before people get wise. So email the list to your friends and family, tweet it and spread the word.

Let’s get to it! Visit Senate.gov and House.gov.

Check Memeorandum.com for more reactions.

Once again, share these reasons with everyone you know, and urge them to flood the offices of their members of Congress with e-mails, faxes, phone calls and letters. And be sure to tell everyone to sign the petition.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

P.S. Don’t miss the article that explains reason #11 that I added to Jane’s list: “We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare.”

See also, the Weekly Standard’s “Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill“:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill–and it’s supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.”

and i quote — “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.”

this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

Watch DeMint’s full remarks here:

…

[To watch the video and read more, go to "Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill."]

For all blog reactions to this astonishing element of Reid’s bill, check out blog posts here and here.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

VIDEO UPDATE: “Insurance, Drug Companies Will Make Out Like Bandits.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bronwyn’s Harbor

Here’s RedState’s intro to its astonishing findings in the Reid bill:

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate. …
Ginger Snaps Back

Welcome to the once great United States of America.
Bronwyn’s Harbor

Interesting. Bill Kristol thinks there’s an outside chance that we could derail this bill. I doubt it, but why not check out his reasons?

The first reason he cites is to the HUGE reaction from the public to those sweetheart deals that the likes of Ben Nelson got. People are LIVID.

The second reason is what I’ve dubbed Rule #11 above — that Reid has monkeyed with longtime Senate rules and would require a supermajority of 67 U.S. Senators to change any aspect of the section of the bill that affects the advisory boards that will decide the fate of our health.

Ginger Snaps Back

Wonderful post, I must say.

This is my problem: the right, all of it, is against this travesty. Now, the hard left, the president’s base, is against this travesty.

Do they really think he is a one-term president and are willing to do whatever it takes now to push through the main agenda whatever it may be?

Finally, can someone please tell me what that agenda is? Other than raping and pillaging the American people, I can’t imagine anything else.

The Real HC

Increase the size and scope of the state at any cost.

Attach as many large businesses and large unions to the state to feed it votes and money.

Play one political faction off against another and if that starts to fail, invent fake crises to keep the masses in line.

Feed at the trough with your cronies for as long as possible.

Most countries run this way. America is just a late arrival.

Welcome!

Ginger Snaps Back

Thank you, my dear. That does make sense. However, George Soros is an important component. What does he get out of it? I don’t think he needs any more money.

Dems better as losers

Democrat Representative from Alabama has decided to become a Republican as of today. Many Blue Dogs are leaving Congress after this term–maybe they should switch parties instead. Thank you Parker Griffith for joining the party of normal.

SnarlingCur

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

xuiop

The section saying the law can’t be changed is clearly unconstitutional.

Bronwyn’s Harbor

Who can lodge a lawsuit that can find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Onofre’s arm

The network of checks and balances, and Constitutional restraints are being dismantled so rapidly by one party fiat, there may not even be a Supreme Court by the time a challenge could reach it.
propertius

I doubt if anyone but a sitting Senator would have standing to bring a suit.

HARP

POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

Bronwyn’s Harbor

This is fascinating:

The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.

Griffith, who captured the seat in a close 2008 open seat contest, will become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district. A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject. …

Thank you so much for this link! I will do a fast post on this.

Craig Della Penna

Time for torches and pitchforks?

If they really do this I predict there will be blood in the streets. The more I read about this debacle the more furious I get…

…hmmm, perhaps that’s their strategy: give all the opposition apoplectic fits to sideline them…

Seriously, if this doesn’t provoke a mammoth backlash in the 2010 election then you can kiss the USA goodbye.

Onofre’s arm

I think they’re prepared for a backlash in 2010. But the Republicans couldn’t possibly gain enough seats in either body of Congress to be able to override an Obama veto. And from what I understand, there are major provisions in the bill that can’t be repealed anyway.

Since 95% of the so called “benefits” and penalties don’t take effect until 2014, legitimate challenges to the constitutionality of the bill won’t be considered until long after the damage has been done. I’m not sure, but I believe that someone has to refuse to purchase mandated insurance, refuse to pay the penalty, then be put on trial before a Constitutional challenge to the bill can be leveled. Is it possible that Obama may have stacked the court by then?

Coincidently, I just heard that there will be a vote in the Senate on the constitutionality of the bill. Another 60-40 vote I’m sure, whoop-de-do.

Craig, you say that if there isn’t a mammoth backlash in 2010 then we can kiss the USA goodbye, but I say that the moment this bill goes through is when we’ll be given the kiss of death.

http://www.hillaryorbust.com Hillary or Bust

Thank GOD the left has finally woken up and is now working to stop this monstrosity! I could not get some of my liberal friends to believe me about this reform when it was only the tea partiers speaking out against it. I now finally have some “hope” for a “change.”

Obama was a uniter after all – he is uniting right and left against him.

propertius

It hasn’t been only the Tea Partiers speaking against the bill. PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program), the folks over at The Confluence and Reclusive Leftist, and especially the folks on Corrente have all opposed this bill for quite some time.

Doc99

The Reid Bill is Unconstitutional. And getting more so by the hour.
tek

Seriously, I’m not too worried that this bill cannot ever be repealed. Reagan’s amnesty bill had a claus that stated, if that bill passed, there could never be another amnesty. Do you think this Congress had read that? No, and when the next Congress comes in they’ll do exactly what they want with Obama’s laws.

Onofre’s arm

The 112th Congress will unlikely be able to override an Obama veto. This bill is like a gigantic sucker punch, that’s what the rush is all about. The sooner they can clobber us then run and hide, the longer they’ll have for our rage to die down. Get ready for the media bombardment of glowing propaganda proclaiming the virtues and promises of the bill. By the time 2012 rolls around, the usual mass of “Something for nothing” voters will have become conditioned to the idea that they’ll get free health care, and a new entitlement will have been placed in the “Hall of Sacred and Unassailable Liberal Icons”, right next to Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. Just try and get rid of it then if you want to see blood on the streets.

J.J. (The P.U.M.A.)

The Senate Healthcare Bill is a product of corruption, ignorance of economics and of human nature, and will indeed increase people’s insurance rates. But the author is off the mark on a few of the reasons to be against this bill.

1. If you accept the notion of making insurance companies take all applicants, regardless of their health, it will only work with a highly enforced individual mandate. The reason our rates are going to go up is that people will game the system by paying the 2% penalty instead of the 8% insurance premium. If they get sick, they will then buy insurance. Those of us who keep our insurance will be paying the bills of the sick, but will not receive the premiums of the well.

2. The author complains that the old will be paying 3 times as much as other people for insurance. But it costs 8 times as much to insure an old person compared to a young one. So, another way of looking at this is that the Senate Bill is forcing young people to pay twice as much as costs to insure them so that older people can be subsidized.

3. There is no restriction on a woman’s right to choose. There is a restriction on the government paying for her choice. As someone in the Congress said, “If we are paying for Viagra, we sure should be paying for abortions”. To which I say, “Why the Hell are we paying for Viagra”?

4. I’m not sure what the author is referring to with regard to drug monopolies being created. We have patent laws already in force that give drug companies monopolies for 17 years. On the face of it that may seem unjust, but what is the motivation to develop new drugs if your competitors can take your work and under-cut your profits?

I support the Senate legislation, corrupt and mis-guided as it is, because it will provide guaranteed insurability and cover another 30 million people. The health insurance problem is so big that a bad bill is better than no bill at all.

http://www.hillaryorbust.com Hillary or Bust

“because it will provide guaranteed insurability and cover another 30 million people.”

It is NOT “covering” another 30 million people. A mandate is NOT coverage. It is fascism.

*I* am one of those 30 million and I do NOT want to be forced to buy health insurance. Let me tell you, I can’t afford it, and all that will happen is that I will pay a penalty and STILL have no insurance.

Wake up! This is health care fascism!
trixta

“…a bad bill is better than no bill at all.”

Bots are left with this ridiculous rationalization of the bill!

Retired

Larry’s “Deliverance” post below becomes more and more appropos. “From each, according to what we determine his abilities to be; to each, according to what we determine his needs to be.” The new mantra of the American “Gang of Three,” Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

J.J. (The P.U.M.A.)

Retired, you are on the mark, but let me suggest a slight modification.

“From each according to what we consider to be fair,irregardless of their ability to pay.

To each according to what we consider to be fair, taking into account the relative clout of their voting block”.

donjo

Is it pitchfork time yet?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.
Onofre’s arm

I just heard Senator Burress’ rendition of “The Night Before Christmas” delivered on the Senate floor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3tWfqpAn2s

I think I’m going to get sick.

Thanks Blago
jangles

Will the expansion of medicaid become effective right away? Actually, that could create jobs; expanding community clinic centers could create a huge need for health care workers who are not too skilled.
o

Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel
http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#/notes/sarah-palin/midnight-votes-backroom-deals-and-a-death-panel/213042303434

Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:

“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.

This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)

The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?

This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.

- Sarah Palin
BlogConsulting.com

test
Anonymous

<a href=”http://www.b2bsharing.com/footwear-nike-air-jordan-shoes-c-3502_3571.html“>wholesale jordan shoes </a> 
<a href=”http://www.b2bsharing.com/ugg-boots-ugg-bailey-button-c-3502_3541_3580.html“>wholesale ugg boots</a>
<a href=”http://www.b2bsharing.com/timberland-boots-mens-chukka-boots-c-3502_3566_3567.html“>wholesale timberland boots</a>
<a href=”http://www.b2bsharing.com/mbt-shoes-mbt-mwalk-shoes-c-3502_3587_3588.html“>wholesale mbt shoes</a>
<a href=”http://www.b2bsharing.com/mbt-shoes-mbt-lami-shoes-c-3502_3587_3589.html“>cheap mbt shoes</a>
<a href=”http://www.b2bsharing.com/“>China wholesaler</a>
Pingback: Devastating Critique of Obamacare From the Left : NO QUARTER

Larry Johnson (Bio)
@noquarterusa

We defray costs with sales and donations. Do you shop at Amazon? Click any Amazon ad on this page, choose any purchase and we get a share. Thanks!

Hottest Deals of the Day