Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

ObamaCanard #93: Uninsured Folks Who Use Emergency Rooms for Primary Care Drive Up Costs for Everyone

How often have you read news reports like this one in the San Francisco Chronicle?

Hospital emergency departments, typically the medical providers of last resort, are becoming the only option for insured as well as uninsured people who are unable to get care elsewhere, leading to a record rise in emergency room visits over the past decade, a federal government report found...

"The uninsured have long been more frequent users of (emergency rooms). That's not new. What's new is the rise ... in frequency in visits, and that's occurring in the insured," said Dr. Stephen Pitts, author of the report and a CDC fellow who teaches emergency medicine at Emory University's School of Medicine.

Problem is, the meme is complete bunk.

As Robert J. Samuelson, writing in The Washington Post, and The New York Times' Freakonomics Blog report:

A study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that the insured accounted for 83 percent of emergency-room visits, reflecting their share of the population. After Massachusetts adopted universal insurance, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average, an Urban Institute study found. More than two-fifths of visits represented non-emergencies. Of those, a majority of adult respondents to a survey said it was "more convenient" to go to the emergency room or they couldn't "get [a doctor's] appointment as soon as needed." If universal coverage makes appointments harder to get, emergency-room use may increase.

And:

...a new Slate article from Zachary Meisel and Jesse Pines offers a rosier picture of emergency room usage, and dispels several pervasive myths. They write that E.R. care represents less than 3 percent of healthcare spending, only 12 percent of E.R. visits are non-urgent, and the majority of E.R. patients are insured U.S. citizens, not uninsured, illegal immigrants. Meisel and Pines also point out that E.R. visits don’t necessarily cost more than primary care visits: “In fact, the marginal cost of treating less acute patients in the ER is lower than paying off-hours primary care doctors, as ERs are already open 24/7 to handle life-threatening emergencies.” Ultimately, Meisel and Pines believe that emergency rooms are functioning as they’re supposed to, as “an always-available resource to alleviate pain, make sure your baby is not truly ill, and patch you up after a nasty fall is vital, even if it turns out that your condition wasn’t as serious as you feared.”

Put simply, E.R.'s are functioning far better in the U.S. than in any other country.

Which is why Alan Grayson wants to destroy them. And, it would seem, kill you in the process.

In fact, the reason E.R. usage has grown is because of government-run health care. Most studies indicate that the difficulty in getting primary care appointments (especially for Medicare and Medicaid patients) has contributed to the rise in E.R. use.

So, if Democrats get their way with state-run health care for everyone, look for Emergency Rooms to resemble a DMV chock full of sick people.


Where's TOTUS when you need him? Baier shreds President Obama on Government-run Health Care and the Shady Deals Used to Buy Off Democrats

Remember this?

White House officials once again advanced its contention that Fox News and its commentators are not journalists, rather a propaganda wing of the Republican Party...

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Well, the non-news organization hosted an exclusive sit-down with the President this afternoon, mainly because its competitors have lower ratings than the "Tumble-Dry" setting at the laundromat.

And President Obama did some of his best fibbing ever, which is really saying something. Bill Clinton and Dick Nixon look like rank amateurs compared to #44.

BAIER: ...do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?

OBAMA: ...We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. [FAIL.] So you've got a good package, in terms of substance. [FAIL.] I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate. [So you worry about due process for terrorists, but when it comes to following the very simple Constitutional requirements for passing a law, it's just "procedural". Got it. Perhaps the GOP will change the rules of impeachment and call it a "procedural" matter.]

BAIER: ...We asked our viewers to e-mail in suggested questions and [one question was] 'If the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary to pass a bill, when you have an overwhelming majority in both houses and the presidency?'

OBAMA: ...The key is to make sure that we vote — we have a vote on whether or not we're going to maintain the status quo, or whether we're going to reform the system. [In other words, shut up -- because we're about to get the Democrats' wet dream: complete control over you, your body, your well-being and all of your private health care information. We'll be able to reward allies and punish enemies. Because this is about power. By any means necessary, we're going to pass this bill.]

BAIER: ...OK, the Florida deal, in or out? ...Paying for Medicare Advantage, exempting 800,000 Floridians from —

OBAMA: My understanding is that whatever is going to be done on Medicare is going to apply across the board to all states.

BAIER: Connecticut, Montana — there are a lot of deals in here, Mr. President, that people have issues about.

OBAMA: Bret, the core of this bill is going to be affecting every American family. If you have insurance, you're going to be able to keep it. [FAIL] If you don't have insurance, you're going to be able to buy into a pool, like members of Congress have [FAIL]. We're going to make sure that we have delivery system reforms that strengthen Medicare [FAIL], that are going to make sure that doctors and hospitals are providing better service and better care [FAIL], and this is going to reduce the deficit [FAIL].

BAIER: ...You said a few times as Senator Obama that if a president has to eke out a victory of 50 plus one, that on something as important as health care, "you can't govern." But now you're embracing a 50 plus one reconciliation process in the Senate, so do you feel like you can govern after this? ...Deem and passed, Senate reconciliation and we don't know exactly what's in the fix bill...

OBAMA: ...by the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you'll know what's in it because it's going to be posted and everybody's going to be able to able to evaluate it on the merits. [Will it be on C-Span? FAIL]...

BAIER: ...This is one-sixth of the U.S. economy, though, sir. One-sixth.

OBAMA: ...Now, you keep on repeating the notion that it's one-sixth of the economy. Yes, it's one-sixth of the economy, but we're not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop. [FAIL.] What we're saying is is that for the vast majority of people who have health care, they're going to be able to keep it. But what we are saying is that we should have some basic protections from insurance company abuses and that in order for us to do that, we are going to have to make some changes in the status quo that we've been debating for a year. [FAIL - it's complete government control, which is certain to drive doctors out of their practices and bankrupt private insurers. Guaranteed]

This notion that this has been not transparent, that people don't know what's in the bill, everybody knows what's in the bill. I sat for seven hours with -

BAIER: Mr. President, you couldn't tell me what the special deals are that are in or not today.

OBAMA: I just told you what was in and what was not in.

BAIER: Is Connecticut in?

OBAMA: Connecticut — what are you specifically referring to?

BAIER: The $100 million for the hospital? Is Montana in for the asbestos program? Is — you know, listen, there are people — this is real money, people are worried about this stuff.

OBAMA: And as I said before, this — the final provisions are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes, but — [FAIL.]

BAIER: ...The CBO has said specifically that the $500 billion that you say that you're going to save from Medicare is not being spent in Medicare. That this bill spends it elsewhere outside of Medicare. So you can't have both... You either spend it on expenditures or you make Medicare more solvent. So which is it?

OBAMA: Here's what it does. On the one hand what you're doing is you're eliminating insurance subsidies within Medicare that aren't making anybody healthier but are fattening the profits of insurance companies [FAIL]... The key is that this proposal doesn't weaken Medicare [FAIL], it makes it stronger for seniors currently who are receiving it [FAIL]...

I'll bet Hillary Clinton was just cracking up watching this debacle.

And ten-to-one David Axelrod was cooking up a new excuse to leak to the legacy media ("How's this -- 'the President had a fever, that's why his performance wasn't top-notch' ?")


Hat tip: Memeorandum.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Get Yer 'Call Congress Now' Blog Widget

Don't bother calling the power-mad oligarchs like Hoyer and Pelosi. Instead, call the NRCC's Code Red Targets. Now.

And, if you have a blog, add the widget.

200 pels wide by 138 pels high

Dial:  877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121 ... Code Red - click for the NRCC List of Targeted Congressmen


Update - Join me on the Impeach & Convict Tour of 2011:

Dear Democrats,

I don't think you have any idea how angry we are.

So you would institute an authoritarian bureaucracy like the one our founders despised and revolted against? You would completely disregard public opinion? You would saddle generations yet unborn with trillions in debt? And redistribute trillions of American wealth in futile central planning schemes? So you would destroy the greatest health care system in the world?

And, to top it all off, you would blatantly violate your oath to uphold the Constitution?

November will come. And paybacks are hell.

And we promise to pursue you and your ilk to the ends of the Earth. To unearth your crimes. To impeach those in power and to prosecute the rest. To unwind your Marxist schemes. To politically crush the Democrat Party and leave it as much of a force as the Whigs.

What you are doing is nothing less than child abuse. Punishing the next generation and generations yet unborn. Which seems to be the only skill the Democrat Party possesses.

Be warned. We will pursue you. And you will be punished.




Image credit: Excellence in Broadcasting.

InTrade on Obamacare

InTrade's been wrong on occasion, but this chart isn't encouraging.

Call now -- make your voice heard.

Top 10 Reasons We Can Trust Democrats to Run Health Care as Well as They Run the Economy

10 New home sales hit the lowest level on record in January.

9The percentage of delinquent mortgages hit 5.1%, another high.

8Nearly one out of four mortages are underwater. It's another Obama miracle!

7A huge wave of adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) are about to reset, many from ultra-low "teaser" rates. I think you can guess where the housing market is headed.

6And, thanks to Democrats' laser-like focus on the economy, consumer confidence hit another ten-month low.

5The picture for commercial real estate (CRE) is just as dire as residential; CRE values are down 40% from the high and nearly one-fifth of all commercial property stands vacant today.

4Experts report that CRE is only now hitting the "danger zone" -- losses could total more than a quarter of a trillion dollars.

3For these reasons, CRE lending is almost non-existent today.

2Small- and mid-size banks are in deep trouble; the FDIC's problem list of banks was at 702 at the beginning of the year. In September of 2009, the figure was 552. And the year before, the number was only 252. Banks aren't out of the woods... not by a long shot.

1The "on-the-books" U.S. national debt is now over 12 trillion dollars and is rising at about $3.8 billion a day. Who will buy all the new debt that needs to be rolled over? And what about Social Security, Medicare and other "off-the-books" entitlement programs that are underfunded by $100 trillion?

Yes, it's Democrat Obamanomics in action! With a track record like this, I suggest we let these n00bz run one-sixth of the private sector: the entire health care system. I really don't see how their plans could fail.


Adapted from: 15 Reasons Why Obama’s Claim That “A Second Depression Is No Longer A Possibility” Is Dead Wrong.

Democrats: We're so proud of our awesome takeover of health care that we won't go on record as actually having voted for it

House Majority Leader Stenky Hoyer and Speaker Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi hit the press circuit earlier today to defend the so-called Slaughter Solution, an unprecedented method for enacting government-run health care. This last-gasp Democrat attempt to squeeze out a health care bill would "deem" the Senate health care bill as passed without a direct vote.

Legal experts believe such a maneuver contravenes Article I, Section 7 of the U.S Constitution.

It also compounds a callous disregard for the truth and American traditions:

Democrats have already hidden 60 percent of the cost of the Senate bill, effected an obscenely partisan change in Massachusetts law to keep the bill moving, pledged more than a billion taxpayer dollars to buy votes for the bill, and packed the bill with an unconstitutional individual mandate and provisions that violate the First Amendment. It’s almost as if, to paraphrase comedian Lewis Black, Democrats spent a whole year, umm, desecrating the Constitution and at the last minute went, “Oh! Missed a spot!”

In other words, this health care overhaul is so crazy good the leadership can't even convince Democrats to openly vote on it.

Hoyer attempted to deflect criticism by citing cases where Republicans used a "self-executing" rule.

Oh, the Republicans used it, right? Well, Stenky, could we please have the list of bills and laws passed using this method? There aren't any. It's been used to add and remove amendments, not pass entire bills without a vote. And certainly not for a giant, new and unaffordable entitlement program. And certainly not one that has zero bipartisan support.

Some have argued that the "Gephardt Rule" (House Rule XXVII) -in which a similar "self-executing rule" "deemed" the house to have voted on a new debt ceiling, is valid precedent. Wrong. That rule was for a joint resolution--not a bill. A joint resolution is a guide to the house. It is not a bill under the constitution, and has no force of law. Because a president has nothing to do with a resolution, a self-executing rule is valid for a resolution, but not for a bill.

As Michael McConnell -- director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School -- explained yesterday, the Slaughter Solution is clearly unconsitutional.

So, yes, let's create the largest entitlement program in history, but not require any House Democrat to actually vote on it.

Let's require everyone in the country to purchase a product (health insurance), but exempt Congress, without having an actual vote on the matter.

Maybe they'll pass a rule that says midterm elections aren't necessary either. After all, that's clearly in the Constitution as well -- along with how bills become laws.

I guess this is the "fundamental change" we were promised.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

Monday, March 15, 2010

Fourteen Months of Hell: A Brief, Illustrated History of the Ill-Fated Democrat Health Care Nationalization Efforts of 2009-10

Possessing a treasure trove of political capital -- and fresh from narrow legislative victories over Republicans in passing a Stimulus program; an Omnibus spending bill; auto company takeovers; housing recovery programs and cap-and-trade -- Democrats decided it was time to target the health care industry.

Their goal -- using accounting gimmickry, outright fabrications and straw villains (doctors who do too many amputations, health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, etc.) -- convince the public that a government takeover of the entire health system would result in higher quality and lower costs while insuring between 30 and 50 million more individuals.

The people rebelled. They said hell, no.

Democrats kowtowed to the SEIU and the trial lawyers while shutting Republican ideas completely out of the discussion.

During the August recess of 2009, Democrats either avoided town hall meetings altogether or faced a barrage of criticism from concerned citizens. Democrats ignored their constituents, preferring the tender mercies of their caucus leaders.

The people rebelled. They said hell, no.

Democrats labeled us Nazis, and racists, and obscene names galore, though people of every race, religion, creed and color had joined us.

Democrats even dispatched their brown shirts: SEIU and ACORN thugs to shout down -- and beat down -- ordinary American citizens.

Obama and a compliant legacy media decided their message wasn't clear: more speeches, more network specials, more vilification of doctors, insurers and pharma companies.

The people rebelled. They said hell, no.

Democrats accused Republicans of being the "Party of No" (intentionally ignoring the obscurely named healthcare.gop.gov website)... of being obstructionists (though Republicans did not have the numbers to block anything).

But in the purple state of Virginia -- which had been trending Democrat -- the citizenry swept the board, erasing Democrats in every key race and voting in a new, conservative governor.

And in the deep blue state of New Jersey, and against all odds, a landslide prevented the theft of another election by ACORN's voter registration-and-absentee ballot scams. And a fiscally conservative Republican governor was elected.

The people rebelled. They said hell, no.

Democrats plowed ahead with a Senate health care overhaul anyhow. Using armtwisting and outright bribery -- the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and other outrageous payoffs -- the Senate was finally able to pass a bill by a single vote. On December 24th, when most Americans were traveling, or celebrating Christmas, or thinking of their loved ones, Democrats were passing one of the sleaziest bills in history on purely partisan lines.

In the bluest of blue states, the people spoke. They elected Scott Brown, a fiscally conservative Republican to the Senate, to occupy the so-called "Kennedy Seat". He ran on a platform that included an explicit promise to stop Obamacare in its tracks.

The people rebelled. They said hell, no.

Then Democrats plotted to delay the seating of Scott Brown in order to get their bill passed.

Once this diabolical tactic was exposed, they denied they'd ever have thought of such a thing.

And at his State of the Union address, the President publicly rebuked the Supreme Court for upholding the rights of any corporation (not just media companies) to free speech.

Democrats surrounded the Justices, spittle flying from their lips onto black robes, as they screamed their approval of the President's divisive words.

With 60 votes out of the question and 216 questionable at best, Democrats decided to break Congressional rules and jam a bill using a controversial "reconciliation" process -- by claiming that nationalizing one-sixth of the economy was a "budgetary" matter.

The people rebelled. They said hell, no.

Now the questionable 216 Democrats were wavering; the possibility of the House passing the Senate bill had faded.

So Democrats invented a novel -- and completely unconstitutional -- method of passing the Senate bill. They would use the "Slaughter Solution", a procedural ruling that would 'deem' that the House had passed the Senate bill, when in fact it never had. Put simply, the House would pretend that they'd voted on the bill, but never truly vote on it, presumably to spare their members the stain of supporting such a disastrous piece of legislation.

Tomorrow, in the Capitol Building, the people say again: No. This is the people's house. And we say: a thousand times: no. A trillion times: no.

Where are the Democrats of courage who will stand up to this despicable charade and say hell, no?

If the Republic is to survive, we must crush this despotic scheme.

We must say, hell, no, now and forever. And these petty bureaucrats, these would-be oligarchs, who have forgotten that the Constitution exists (or never read it in the first place) must be reminded of the highest law in the land.

That which is unconstitutional must be treated as a cancer and surgically removed. Those who advocate this dangerous and destructive lawlessness must be removed from office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


Inspired by: If you try the Slaughter Rule, you will lose the country. Not in November. In March. (by E Pluribus Unum).

Sources: "Budget Committee is all smoke and mirrors" -- Slaughter Solution Will Be Used "Likely Wednesday"

Operative 'Deep Tort' sent us this update at 5:31pm from his sources inside the House. This information jibes with late-breaking reports that Pelosi has several options on the table.

I am still hearing the scenario I circulated earlier (listed below as Scenario 2, "Slaughter Solution 1") is the most likely. But here are the 5 possible scenarios for moving health care through the House.

Senate Bill (Senate Amendment to H.R. 3950)
Reconciliation "Sidecar" (yet to be reported by Budget Committee
Scenario 1: "Play it Straight" Rule provides for an up or down vote Rule provides for an up or down vote
Scenario 2: "Slaughter Solution 1" Rule "deems" the Senate bill passed immediately and sends the bill to the President Rule provides for an up or down vote
Scenario 3: "Slaughter Solution 2"
Rule "deems" the Senate bill passed upon House adoption of reconciliation sidecar Rule provides for an up or down vote
Scenario 4: "Slaughter Solution 3" Rule "deems" the Senate bill passed when the Senate passes the reconciliation sidecar Rule provides for an up or down vote
Scenario 5: "The Double Whammy"
Rule #2 "deems the Senate bill passed immediately and sends the bill to the resident Rule #1 allows the Rules Committee to turn off the motion to recommit Rule #2 "deems" the sidecar bill passed immediately and sends the bill to the Senate


Later (6:30pm ET):

The budget committee is all smoke and mirrors. They are required to pass out a budget reconciliation bill in order to start the process. They just dressed up an old version of the House bill in reconciliation clothes so Pelosi and the rules committee have a vehicle they can completely amend with their own reconciliation instructions.

Likely Wednesday, the rules committee will report a rule which essentially does 3 things. 1) sets the time for debate; 2) makes 1 substitute amendment in order; and 3) deems the Senate bill passed.

The House will proceed on 3 votes on health care.

1) approval of the rule (this will be the big vote since it passes the Senate bill by default)
2) approval of the leadership/rules Amendment in the nature of the substitute (strip the budget committee text with the leadership text)
3) final passage

Thoughts appreciated.

Related:
Fourteen Months of Hell: A Brief, Illustrated History of the Ill-Fated Democrat Health Care Nationalization Efforts of 2009-10
The 'Slaughter Solution' -- the Legislative Equivalent of Martial Law

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Michael McConnell of Stanford Law: 'Slaughter solution cannot be squared with Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution'

Excerpted from tomorrow's Wall Street Journal (apologies, Rupert, but this one is way too important to keep completely behind the pay-wall):

Democratic congressional leaders have floated a plan to enact health-care reform by a procedure dubbed “the Slaughter solution.” ...Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate’s health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill. This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

The Slaughter solution cannot be squared with Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

...Last Christmas Eve, the Senate approved a health-care bill by 60 votes, overcoming a Republican filibuster. This is the bill that contains the so-called Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, taxes on high-cost health insurance plans and coverage for abortions. Virtually no one now supports that version of the bill, but Senate Democrats no longer have enough votes to pass an alternative bill under ordinary procedures.

That is where reconciliation fits in. If the House passes the Senate bill and the president then signs it into law, reconciliation would permit Congress to pass new legislation making changes to that law. Reconciliation might not solve the abortion coverage problem or other nonbudgetary issues, but it would allow Democrats to correct most of the Senate bill’s offensive features.

The rub is that, according to the Senate parliamentarian, reconciliation is permitted only for bills that amend existing law, not for amendments to bills that have yet to be enacted. This means that, for the Senate to be able to avoid a filibuster, House Democrats first have to vote for the identical bill that passed the Senate last Christmas Eve. That means voting aye on the special deals, aye on abortion coverage, and aye on high taxes on expensive health-insurance plans. Challengers are salivating at the prospect of running against incumbents who vote for these provisions.

Enter the Slaughter solution. It may be clever, but it is not constitutional. To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.

To be sure, each House of Congress has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” ...But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.

Mr. McConnell is a professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He formerly served as a judge for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

McConnell's assessment squares with those of other Constitutional experts who believe that the use of the "Slaughter Solution" is "preposterous" and "dangerous".

Democrats are holding a match to the very fabric of our society.


Robert Gibbs: Even if I have to personally break into the Smithsonian with a blowtorch and burn the Constitution, we will pass health care this week

Memo to Democrats: you'll get the Constitution from us when you pry it from our cold, dead hands. The Hill reports:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the healthcare bill will pass by next weekend.

“We’ll have the votes when the House votes, I think, within the next week,” Gibbs said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Gibbs added that those on next week’s Sunday talk shows “will be talking about healthcare not as a presidential proposal but I think as the law of the land.”

President Barack Obama will look to campaign on the new healthcare law in midterm elections, Gibbs said.

“We believe healthcare reform is going to pass, and once it passes we’re happy to have the 2010 elections be about the achievement of healthcare reform,” Gibbs said.

I never, in my wildest imagination, thought that the Democrat Party would take it this far. That they would move so far to the left that even Hugo Chavez is stunned.

If you have any way to get to the Capitol Building, join the march on Tuesday to stop the slaughter of the U.S. Constitution.


Chris van Hollen's memo to Democrats describes how the U.S. Constitution will be shredded this week; the "Slaughter Rule" is a go

The detestable menace Chris van Hollen (D-MD) sent out the following memo to House Democrats earlier today.

TODAY or MONDAY: CBO will publish final scores on legislative language

THEN: House Budget Committee must approve using the reconciliation process to pass this

THEN: The bill will go to the Rules Committee, rule will be constructed for consideration on the floor, and language will be posted online (on the Rules website) and the 72-hour clock will start. When this happens, we will start to have a better idea on what the process will be.

THEN: A Manager’s Amendment will be constructed that will make some final changes

THEN: The Manager’s Amendment will be posted online and the 72-hour clock will start (this may overlap with the 72-hour clock on the reconciliation language). When Manager’s Amendment is done final process decisions will be locked in.

THIS MEANS: We will likely vote Friday or Saturday. (As you probably saw, POTUS pushed back the departure for his Asian trip from Thursday the 18th to Sunday the 21st; this was not a coincidence.) The Speaker has publically committed to trying to get a vote on both the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill on the same day. They are still trying to work out the final process on this and much of what we do depends on what the Senate Parliamentarian decides. You may be receiving calls about the “Slaughter Rule” and other rumors about what the process will be. Again, please understand: no decision has yet been made on the process for consideration on the House floor.

Of course a decision has been made. We're hours away from Slaughter revealing the strategy and Democrats have no other mechanism to pass a bill other than using an extra-Constitutional procedure. They don't have the votes to pass the Senate Bill, so they are -- for the first time in U.S. history -- about to rule that they actually passed a bill they never voted on.

On Fox News Sunday, van Hollen suggested that the Slaughter Rule was still a major component of the Democrats' plans.

Van Hollen responded to [Rep. Eric] Cantor by saying that “we are going to have an up or down vote, whether it is going to be on the Senate bill or a procedure that will include passage of the Senate bill recognizing that we are amending the Senate bill.” An up or down vote on a procedure is not an up or down vote on a bill. Van Hollen was quick to attempt a shift away from this procedural debate, but Cantor brought the discussion back to this questionable procedure.

Earlier today, the Heritage Foundation reported the aptly-named "Slaughter Rule" is a done deal.

The Budget Committee will meet Monday to start marking up a shell of a Reconciliation Bill. The Rules Committee will then meet as early as Wednesday to hollow out whatever the Budget Committee passed and then insert a new bill from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office. The Majority is still planning to use the “Slaughter Rule” that would allow the House to pass the Senate health care bill without voting on it. Final votes are expected to stretch into the weekend.

That is why Tuesday is such an important milestone. If you have any way to get to the Capitol Building, join the march to stop the slaughter of the U.S. Constitution.


Hat tip: Heartland.

Your Daily Dose of Deification Iconography, Courtesy of Your Friends at The New York Times

iOwnTheWorld alerts us to the last, Goebbels-like gasps of The New York Times as it races desperately to salvage Obamacare and -- by extension -- Barack Obama's presidency.

Consider the headline and the photograph in today's weekly review of the news.

Let's first examine the headline: "As Health Vote Awaits, Future of a Presidency Waits, Too."

The Times' concern, laughably, is for the Obama legacy, not the hundreds of millions of citizens whose very lives will be impacted by a Rube Goldberg-esque, certain-to-fail, country-bankrupting, Soviet central-planner's wet dream. The Times, of course, has yet to report on the outrageous and illegal attempt to surreptitiously pass the Senate's health care bill. This effort, orchestrated by the House Rules Committee and known as the "Slaughter Rule", threatens to light the fuse on a full-blown Constitutional crisis.

Now consider the Times' choice of imagery to accompany the article.

Let's review the central attributes of the photograph:
  • Obama, in what has become a tradition for the media, is deified with lighting that resembles a halo (ever recall the use of similar lighting for George W. Bush?)
  • Deification is further emphasized through the use of a cross watermark, courtesy of a mosaic filter
  • The focus, however, is on Obama's single upraised finger, the digit pointing towards the heavens, as if to say "I am the one that can save us, as it was foretold by the ancients." Or something.
  • The White House, a tiny, nearly transparent reflection, is located below the President; it seemingly says that the man is bigger than the office. He is more real. He is more important. He is the One.
Of course, in real life, Barack Obama appears to be little more than a cigarette-puffing Chicago pol, trained in the Alinsky school, whose doctor recently requested cut down on his drinking.

Asked by the American people -- repeatedly -- to concentrate on the economy and job creation, Obama instead flogs a dead horse called socialized medicine that the citizenry detests.

Asked to stop violating the laws and traditions of this country, he instead nationalizes businesses, grows the size of government and creates new entitlements and payoffs for his union backers.

The Times -- and Obama -- are both anachronisms destined for the ash heaps of history. In the latter case, surpassing the detestable James Earl Carter for the title of worst president of all time. That much is already certain.


Update: March 16th in Washington: Stop the Constitution Butchers... Stop Pelosi’s Slaughter House.

Linked by: Jammie Wearing Fool. Thanks!

Pelosi to House Democrats: Don't Listen To Your Constituents, They Really Do Want ObamaCare, Even If They Tar and Feather You During Recess

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has explicitly told House Democrats to sacrifice their own reelection efforts -- in other words, defy their constituents -- in order to pass a massive new entitlement program at a time when Americans and America can least afford it. Since when did Democrats owe fealty to a House Speaker and not their own constituents?

The following list of wavering Democrats, courtesy of AmeriPAC, contains the contact info you need to make your voice heard. Be polite, but be firm: a vote for ObamaCare is a vote against representative government, against the Constitution and against our families.

PLEASE CALL!DC OFFICELOCAL OFFICEStateDistrict
Harry Mitchell(202) 225-2190(480) 946-2411AZ5th District
Gabrielle Giffords(202) 225-2542(520) 881-3588AZ8th District
Ann Kirkpatrick(202) 225-2315(928) 226-6914AZ1st District
Jerry McNerney(202) 225-1947925-833-0643CA11th District
John Salazar202-225-4761970-245-7107CO3rd District
Jim Himes(202) 225-5541(866) 453-0028CT4th District
Alan Grayson(202) 225-2176(407) 841-1757FL8th District
Bill Foster(202) 225-2976630-406-1114IL14th District
Baron Hill202 225 5315812 288 3999IN9th District
Mark Schauer(202) 225-6276(517) 780-9075MI7th District
Gary Peters(202) 225-5802(248) 273-4227MI9th District
Dina Titus(202) 225-3252702-256-DINA (3462)NV3rd District
Carol Shea-Porter(202) 225-5456(603) 743-4813NH1st District
Tim Bishop(202) 225-3869(631) 696-6500NY1st District
John Hall(202) 225-5441(845) 225-3641 x49371NY19th District
Bill Owens(202) 225-4611(315) 782-3150NY23rd District
Mike Arcuri(202)225-3665(315)793-8146NY24th District
Dan Maffei(202) 225-3701(315) 423-5657NY25th District
Earl Pomeroy(202) 225-2611(701) 224-0355NDAt-Large District
Steven Driehaus(202) 225-2216(513) 684-2723OH1st District
Mary Jo Kilroy(202) 225-2015(614) 294-2196OH15th District
Zach Space(202) 225-6265(330) 364-4300OH18th District
Kathy Dahlkemper(202) 225-5406(814) 456-2038PA3rd District
Patrick Murphy(202) 225-4276(215) 826-1963PA8th District
Christopher Carney(202) 225-3731(570) 585-9988PA10th District
Paul Kanjorski(202) 225-6511(570) 825-2200PA11th District
John Spratt(202) 225-5501(803)327-1114SC5th District
Tom Perriello(202) 225-4711(276) 656-2291VA5th District
Alan Mollohan(202) 225-4172(304) 623-4422WVA1st District
Nick Rahall(202) 225-3452(304) 252-5000WVA3rd District
Steve Kagen(202) 225-5665(920) 437-1954WI8th District

It's up to us -- the last line of defense -- to prevent this abomination of a bill from proceeding.

Update: March 16th in Washington: Stop the Constitution Butchers... Stop Pelosi’s Slaughter House.


Saturday, March 13, 2010

Friendly Reminder for the Congressional Easter Recess

Remember, folks: tarring and feathering has a long and proud history in these United States.

Not that I'm recommending it, mind you. But that history part is true.


Image Credit: Protestors Tar and Feather a Tax Collector during the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania, c.1790 (Art.com).

Pelosi: I'm delighted the President will be here to burn the Constitution in Effigy... it's going to be historic.

Yesterday evening, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi celebrated the imminent passage of a sweeping health care reform bill by burning the Constitution in effigy, a symbolic act that she said expressed her disdain for the document.

Under White House pressure to act swiftly, House and Senate Democratic leaders reached for agreement Friday on President Barack Obama's health care bill, sweetened suddenly by fresh billions for student aid and a sense that breakthroughs are at hand.

"It won't be long," before lawmakers vote, predicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi [as] officials worked to maximize Obama's influence over lawmakers who control the fate of legislation that has spawned a yearlong struggle. They said he would delay his departure on an Asian trip for three days -- until March 21 -- and he will go to Ohio next week for a campaign-style pitch for his health care proposals.

..."I'm delighted that the president will be here for the passage of the bill; it's going to be historic," said Pelosi, D-Calif. -- though there's no guarantee the House can act by then. A procedural vote in the House Budget Committee is set for Monday afternoon, but as of late Friday lawmakers still hadn't gotten the final analysis from the Congressional Budget Office that they need to go forward.

By tying a nationalization of the student loan business into a reconciliation bill, Pelosi hopes to convince skeptical House Democrats that she's serious about fixing the Senate bill.

House Democrats plan to tack a major reform of the nation's student loan system onto the health care overhaul bill, a move that could help corral votes in the House but might make the bill's passage more complicated in the Senate.

House Democrats have been skeptical of voting for the Senate version of the health care bill [because the] Senate bill contains a number of provisions they don't like -- including federal aid targeted at specific states that critics say was used to buy votes and a tax on high-cost insurance plans. House Democrats fear that, after they approve the current Senate version of the bill, the Senate won't be able to pass the reconciliation bill and fix the objectionable parts.

What's their endgame? Even a simpleton or a Democrat (but I repeat myself), would admit that it has nothing to do with health care. It's a political calculation: Democrats are willing to lose Congress in November if they can create a brand new unfunded entitlement that will cement the power of government over the citizen.

...the president and leaders of the majority party have become infected with a kind of mania. President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders seem determined to ram through a severely flawed piece of legislation by any means necessary, heedless of the desires of the American people or the negative impact on the system they mistakenly say needs to be saved.

...All they need to do is pass the bill, and the poor, frightened, deluded American people will see the wisdom of their decisions. Hence House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's memorable (and revealing) comment, "We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it." In her imagination, once the bill is signed, voters won't remember the struggle, just the glow of the accomplishment. Rip off the bandage; you'll feel better after the sting.

The Democrats' headlong drive is leading to bouts of political insanity, such as the aptly named Slaughter rule, which potentially could allow the House of Representatives to "deem" the health bill passed without a final vote. That the Democratic leadership would consider resorting to such a stunt betrays a high degree of contempt for the electorate...

This rogue Congress and this President have already taken over insurance companies, banks and two car companies. And they've screwed up everything they've touched, from Fannie Mae, to General Motors, to "Cash for Clunkers".

Now Democrats want to touch off another huge economic calamity by nationalizing one-sixth of the U.S. economy and taking control of the student loan business. Not only are these efforts clearly unprecedented in all of American history, they are both antithetical to our founding and completely, utterly unconstitutional.


Update: March 16th in Washington: Stop the Constitution Butchers... Stop Pelosi’s Slaughter House.


Friday, March 12, 2010

RED ALERT: We Are Now Living Under Martial Law -- House Democrats Appear Set to Pass Senate Bill Without Voting On It

The Washington Examiner reports that House Democrats appear poised to adopt a rule that would pass the Senate health care bill without actually voting on it.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is preparing to pass the health care overhaul through the House of Representatives without a vote, as was originally reported by the National Journal's Congress Daily. Mark Tapscott observes that such a maneuver would be the penultimate refutation of the people's will.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill "passed" once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!

Constitutional attorney Mark R. Levin asks, "They're going to present a rule, issued by her committee as chairman, that says that the House already adopted the Senate bill when we know it didn't?"

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively...

According to Levin, James Madison himself gave special care and attention to this clause in the Constitution.

Levin: And do you want to know why? Because this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.

This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were... They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President...

This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.

And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.

Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!

Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law... the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.

This is why we conservatives revere the Constitution. This is why we stress the Constitution's words have meaning and historical context and must be complied with. Because otherwise we have anarchy, which leads to tyranny.

This is a crucial lesson for those of you who... aren't sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren't sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, ...openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.

And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you'll ever get... So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race -- with scores of others -- to the courthouse to stop this.

I can't think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!

...It's not only absurd on its face -- that these power-hungry ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim that the House voted on something it never voted on... that's not only absurd on its face, it's blatantly unconstitutional!

Please stay tuned for updates to this post as we will provide additional insight from Levin and other Constitutional experts.

Update 11-March-2010 21:03 ET:

Levin: I wanted to bring additional firepower on this subject, my buddy Arthur Fergenson, who is a Constitutional expert and who has argued cases in front of the Supreme Court, including Buckley vs. Valeo...

What do you make of this unbelievable -- that they're even talking about, this chairman of the Rules Committee -- acting as if members of the House voted on something when they didn't actually vote on it?

Fergenson: It's preposterous. It's ludicrous. But it's also dangerous. It's dangerous because, first, ...because [the U.S. Constitution's] Article I Section VII says every bill -- and it capitalized "bill" -- ...it is common sense that the bill is the same item, it can't be multiple bills, it can't be mashups of bills. And, in fact, in 1986, Gene Gressman, no conservative, and one of the experts -- the expert -- on Supreme Court practice... was writing an article that was dealing with a less problematic attempt to get around this section of the Constitution... [Ed: the line-item veto] and he wrote, "By long usage and plain meaning, 'Bill' means any singular and entire piece of legislation in the form it was approved by the two houses."

...the bills have to be revoted until they are identical. Both chambers have to vote on the bill.

If this cockamamie proposal were to be followed by the House and there were to be a bill presented to the President for his signature, that was a bill that had not been voted on -- identically by the two Houses of Congress -- that bill would be a nullity. It is not law. That is chaos.

I cannot recall any circumstance in which that has happened.

...What we have here is a measure, that if Obama signed it, would immediately affect taxation, it would change rules of practice in the insurance industry, it would regulate 17% of the nation's economy, and it would be done without any legal basis whatsoever!

Update 11-March-2010 21:12 ET:

Fergenson: It's like, the closest I can think of is martial law! The President would have no authority -- there would be no law! It's not like it would be constitutional or not. There would be. No. Law.

Levin: What do you make of people who sit around and even think of things like this? To me, they are absolutely unfit to even be in high office!

Fergenson: You're right, Mark. And I would go back to what caused Gressman to write this... he was asked for his comments by the Senate... because the Senate was trying to do the equivalent of a line-item veto. And, in 1986, you were in the Justice Department under Attorney General Meese... there was a proposal... to take a bill and divide it into little pieces and.. then the President would sign each one or veto each one. That was unconstitutional. A Senate Rules Committee reported it unfavorably.

Update 11-March-2010 21:36 ET:

Levin: You know what's interesting about this... Attorney General Ed Meese considered it unconstitutional even though President Reagan had wanted a line-item veto. And President Reagan agreed that it was unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution...

...Speaking for myself, I would tell the people who listen to this program that you are under absolutely no obligation to comply with it [this health care bill] because it is not, in fact, law. Do you agree with me?

Fergenson: I agree with you. I believe it would be tested by the Supreme Court. I believe that, under these circumstances, chaos would reign. There is no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. The courts are empowered to determine whether it's unconstitutional... it's not a law.

Under this scenario, the various arms of the federal government will be acting under a law that does not exist.

Update: March 16th in Washington: Stop the Constitution Butchers... Stop Pelosi’s Slaughter House.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin, Protein Wisdom, iOwnTheWorld, Theo Spark and VikingPundit. Thanks!

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

A simple point: why health care is not, and can never be, a "right"

Health care is a set of goods and services that are procured through payments.

Is the right to life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness facilitated by the transfer of funds? Of course not. Our country's founders would never have countenanced the mandated delivery of services compelled by an authoritarian, centralized government. That was precisely the type of system they were trying to escape in the British Crown.

Thought Experiment: If Health Care Is a Right

If you live in the village of Curmudgeon, Montana, where there are no doctors, will the government compel a doctor to move to the area?

If you've received multiple heart bypass operations, chemotherapy and dialysis, yet you still won't stop smoking three packs and eating a dozen Twinkies a day, will the government guarantee care for your "preexisting" conditions?

If you're a health insurance company's CEO and the government mandates premiums, who you must cover, what kind of coverage you must offer, and the margins you are permitted to make, do you really think you can stay in business? Hint: in all of recorded history, find a place or time where price controls worked. Don't worry, I'll wait here while you check.

If you're a doctor in a specialty area and you decide that the government's reimbursements no longer pay enough for you to stay in business (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc.), what happens when there are no longer enough specialists in your field to handle the demand? Will the government forcibly require you to practice?

If you're a drug company's CEO and the government sets limits on the prices you can charge and dictate where your research money goes through its reimbursement schedules, how will new, unproven and cutting-edge drugs -- which require massive risk-taking -- get developed? (This may explain why roughly 75% of all pharmaceuticals are invented in the United States, not the faux Utopias of England or Canada).

What is health care?

Health care is an infinitely complex series of transactions facilitated by doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, hospital systems, brokers, third-party networks, caregivers, volunteers and others.

The Democrats want to nationalize this entire system, and set up small committees of central planners who will formulate all of the rules, set prices, dictate treatments, and proscribe the activities of every kind of market participant, including patients.

Can a tiny group of Harvard-educated elites, serving as central planners similar to the Politburo, replace millions of decisions based upon free will?

Health care consists of goods and services, which must be paid for like any other. And goods and services simply cannot be a "right", unless you are willing to relive the horrors of the Soviet Union's gulags, Pol Pot's killing fields or Hitler's brand of medicine.

Because when you replace voluntary transactions with central planning, you are replacing liberty with tyranny.


Related: Canada's health care system is a poor model for the U.S..

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Two articles to forward to Democrat acquaintances (probably not your friends) who favor government-run health care

I'll be polite, like Mish, and ask you to please consider:

From the UK: 1,200 Needless Deaths: Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust [Hospital] put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care... But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction... Indeed, some have either retired on lucrative pensions or have swiftly found new jobs...

• Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;

• Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;

•  Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;

•  Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.

From Canada: Canadian Legislator Goes to Miami for Heart Surgery: An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision...

"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla... "I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

The 60-year-old Williams said doctors detected a heart murmur last spring and told him that one of his heart valves wasn't closing properly, creating a leakage... Williams said [U.S. doctors could make] an incision under his arm that didn't require any bone breakage [unlike the procedures required in Canada].

..."I would've been criticized if I had stayed in Canada and had been perceived as jumping a line or a wait list. ... I accept that. That's public life," he said... "(But) this is not a unique phenomenon to me. This is something that happens with lots of families throughout this country, so I make no apologies for that."

Not to worry, citizens. Democrats promise that government-run health care will work as flawlessly as their $840 billion Stimulus program.


Hat tip: Zero Hedge.

Friday, March 05, 2010

Change: WaPo admits Obama will add $9.7 trillion to U.S. debt by 2020

When you've lost The Washington Post, you've lost E.J. Dionne.

President Obama's policies would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday, including more than $2 trillion that Obama proposes to devote to extending a variety of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration.

The 10-year outlook by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is somewhat gloomier than White House projections, which found that Obama's policies would add $8.5 trillion to the debt by 2020.

For those of you Democrats keeping score, that's roughly fifteen Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

And when you've lost the Associated Depress, you've lost the Harvard Journalism majors.

Congressional estimates show grim deficit picture...

The deficit picture has turned alarmingly worse since the recession that started at the end of 2007, never dipping below 4 percent of the size of the economy over the next decade. Economists say that deficits of that size are unsustainable and could put upward pressure on interest rates, crowd out private investment in the economy and ultimately erode the nation's standard of living.

Say, I've got an idea!

Let's nationalize one-sixth of the economy and run up another few trillion in debt! After all, those evil insurance companies actually make enough profit to pay for two days of American health care! That's right: the profits of all U.S. health insurance companies equals two days of coverage for Americans.

Oh, those evil, evil bastards!

Come to think of it, I really like waiting in line at the DMV. They gave me a coloring book and everything! So, if I need a kidney, I can entertain myself while I wait.


Hat tip: Drudge. Linked by: Michelle Malkin and Memeorandum. Thanks!

Senate to House: 'You can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f***ed up... you trusted us!'

William Jacobson was among the first to point out that reconciliation doesn't matter when it comes to Democrats ramming Obamacare through Congress.

Probably the single biggest obstacle to Obamacare is House Democrats who do not like the Senate health care bill, but whose votes are needed to move the budget reconciliation process along... The strategy appears to be for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, based on the promise of the budget reconciliation process being successful in the Senate to implement changes.

But what if the Senate does not or cannot pass the changes through the reconciliation process?

Obama then has to power to sign the bill as passed by the House and Senate, meaning the Senate bill... Has Obama promised not to do so? ...Here's a list of Obama promises to the left-wing of the Democratic Party which have been broken, courtesy of Firedoglake: Senate Health Care Bill Is Built On Obama’s Broken Promises.

Here are some others, all from the left:

The Senate's reaction to the House echoes Otter's missive to Flounder:

"You can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f***ed up... you trusted us!"

Anyone who trusts Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and President Andy Stern needs their head examined (after it is oh-so-carefully extracted from their posterior).