Democrats Change The Rules, Preparing To Trash The Constitution (Slaughter Solution)

How many times did we Conservatives warn about this during the 2008 election cycle and how many times were we ignored? The Democrats are radicals who want to force the failure of European-style socialism on the United States.

The Dems are now going to try forcing Obamacare through the legislative process using a trick known as the Slaughter Solution that is clearly unconstitutional, but they don't seem to care.

From U.S. House of Representatives Minority Leader John Boehner's Blog:

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House - without an actual vote by members of the House.

This is referencing a Congress Daily story that states:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Essentially, The Dems want to "bundle" the Senate bill in with the corrections bill. No debate on the Senate bill will take place in the House at all.

This is the most brazen usurpation of our Constitution in the history of the United States. We Conservatives knew the Democrats were more than capable of pulling tricks like this, but few, if any, seemed to listen to us.

Is anyone listening now?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Prepare “Slaughter Solution” To Ram Unpopular Health Care Takeover Through Congress Without A Vote
Dave Schnittger
Rep. John Boehner's Blog
March 10, 2010's

One Paragraph Summation Of The Health Care Proposal

I don't know who authored this, but it really says it all:

Let me get this straight. We're going to maybe have a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?

I wish some reporter would ask this question of Congress and the President.

AARP Loses Members Over Health Care Stance

I've been away at the beach for the past few days, but now I've returned and am ready to jump back into the fray.

This article in USA Today caught my eye for a couple of reasons. First, it demonstrates how the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is more of a lobbying firm than it is a representative organization. Second, it highlights an aspect of the failures of the American public education system ever since the libs took control of it back in the 60's and 70's.

Let's look at the first point. From the Associated Press:

About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday. The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all.

And it is not just the cuts in Medicare that are of concern. Seniors are also concerned about the "end of life" provisions in Section 1233 of HR3200 and about the "outcome-based measures" of Section 1162 of HR3200 which could be used as justifications for denying health care to seniors based on their "productivity" as citizens.

Although AARP has said they will not support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits, they have yet to come out and point to any specific language in any bill as a reason for refusing support. Further, they have refused to threaten witholding of support as a means to pressure any lawmakers.

So, let's look at my second point above. You may have noticed that at many of the Town Hall meetings across the United States that a great many of those voicing their opposition to socialized health care are, in fact, seniors. I was discussing this with a friend of mine and he noted that the older crowd seemed to know the legal mechanism better than the younger crowd.

This made sense to me. I began learning about the Constituion in the 4th grade and learned how bills were passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. These laws were then tested in the courts to make sure they didn't violate the Constitution. This was back in the early 70's.

Ever since the left has taken over the education system here in the U.S., such lessons are becoming more and more scarce. That is one of the reasons you see such an age disparity at the Town Halls and probably a good reason why Arlen Specter scolded his own constituents saying, "I am not required to be here!" only to have the crowd angrily boo at him. Apparently, Specter was expecting his crowd to be of the younger set who was not as well-educated about the Constitution. He was wrong.

I hope this debate continues for several more months. It is the best thing to happen to America since the end of World War II.

You can access the original article on-line here:

AARP Loses Members Over Health Care Stance
Associated Press via Usa Today
August 18, 2009

Obama Officials: New Taxes May Be Needed

You have to wonder what the professors at Harvard, Yale and other high end colleges and universities are teaching about economics. Everytime we turn around we hear about how the Dems want to raise taxes on "the rich." Do they believe that the top income earners in the nation have a money tree that they can harvest at anytime. Do they believe that they can continually add more and more tax burdens without their being any detrimental effect on the economy at all?

Apparently, Harvard and Yale graduates believe just that. Those of us who went to more mainstream schools like the University of Maryland know better. We know that the more money the government confiscates from the private sector, the harder it is for jobs to be created and sustained. We know that there isn't a limitless supply of money and we understand that eventually, tax burdens will become so heavy that taxpayers will look for ways of minimizing the effect or simply move their means of income to a new location (e.g. off-shore).

The Dems are still trying to further wreck our economy by taxing away the means for employers to hire new employees. From Fox News:

President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession. With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy. "We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week." Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."

What Obama and Geithner seem to be completely unable to understand is that continually piling on more taxes for those who earn over $500,000/year will soon mean that they will get less take-home pay than people earning less than $500,000/year. Thus, who would ever want to earn that much money if it means less take-home pay? Those people will simply find a way to bring their income down below that $500,000/year level. That means less tax revenue which in turn means that the government will have to begin taxing lower income people in order to make up the difference.

The health care reform bill which is supposed to be saving us money is getting more and more expensive.

Which makes this little tidbit very interesting:

National Economic Council President Larry Summers said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that jobs are a lagging indicator and once output increases, job growth will start to pick up. "I think we have a ways to go. I want to emphasize the basic realities. Unemployment is still very high in this country," Summers said. He added that it's not a good idea to rule out future taxes. "There is a lot that can happen over time. ... But what the president has been completely clear on is that he is not going to pursue any of his priorities -- not health care, not energy, nothing -- in ways that are primarily burdening middle-class families. That is something that is not going to happen," Summers said.

Except that is is going to happen, one way or the other. Either a direct tax increase on middle-class incomes, or indirect taxes on companies and corporations who will simply pass the tax along to the middle-class in the form of higher retail prices.

But what are the Harvard and Yale graduates in the government proposing? More taxes and more spending:

While economists agree spending is required in a recession, [Rep. Mike] Pence said that money would be better spent by the American people, not the federal government. "Borrowing a trillion dollars from future generations of Americans and spreading it around the economy is going to have some catalytic effect in the economy in the short term, but again, it's no substitute for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.," he said. 'This piecemeal approach -- government handouts through a government bureaucracy -- is no substitute for broad-based tax relief and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C."

I find it amusing how the Dems are constantly saying that Republicans haven't had an original idea since Ronald Reagan. Given their idea of tax and spend, tax and spend, and then raise taxes again to make up for the overspending, the Dems have not had an original idea since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Officials Don't Dismiss Possibility Of New Taxes
Fox News
August 3, 2009

Kennedy Health Care Chart

Does anyone here really think that government run health care will be more efficient and help more people than private health care? The horror stories coming out of Canada and Great Britain are ample evidence that socialized medicine is a disaster.

But here, we can see one of the reasons why. Click on the following chart (requires Adobe reader):



Given all the new bureaucrats who will now be involved in your health care decisions, how long do you think it will take before certain treatments are approved? Do you think that if you or someone in your family needs urgent care that you will get it in a timely manner? That has not been the experience of people in Canada and Great Britain. And it won't be the experience of people here if we move towards this disastrous health care system.

Go to the following website and get the facts about patients' rights:

Conservatives For Patients' Rights

Doctors Boo Obama

Obama's trek towards socialized medicine got off to a rocky start with his speech to the American Medical Association in Chicago last Monday. Part of the reason was that he refused to endorse limiting the payouts of medical malpractice lawsuits.

From Richard Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated Press:

For all the young president's popularity, the response he got Monday from doctors at an American Medical Association meeting was a sign his road is only going to get rockier as he tries to sell his plan to overhaul the nation's health care system. The boos erupted when Obama told the doctors in Chicago he wouldn't try to help them win their top legislative priority—limits on jury damages in medical malpractice cases.

Why would Obama go to an AMA conference and say something that he knew would draw the ire of the crowd?

Read on:

If Obama announced support for malpractice limits, that would set trial lawyers and unions—major supporters of Democratic candidates—on the attack. Not to mention consumer groups. Every other group in the health care debate has a wish list and a top priority. Insurers don't want competition from the government. Employers don't want to be told they have to offer medical coverage to their workers. Hospitals want to stave off Medicare cuts. Drug companies want to charge what the market will bear. Obama can't give all of them what they want. Instead, he's got to figure what's just enough to keep as many groups as possible on board—without alienating others. It's a fine line for him—and sometimes for them.

Obama and the Democrats can no longer hide the fact that socialized medicine is going to be expensive (about $62,500 per person per year, including illegals) and that people are going to get screwed by the new socialized system.

But, the Dems still say they want to reform the system because the current system is too expensive. Where is that expense coming from?

The article actually hit on it here:

Doctors have special reasons to be wary of the president's plans to overhaul the health care system. Not long ago, doctors' decisions were rarely questioned. Now they are being blamed for a big part of the wasteful spending in the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system. Studies have shown that as much as 30 cents of the U.S. health care dollar may be going for tests and procedures that are of little or no value to patients.

A very large perecentage of the tests and procedures that have "little or no value" to the patient are requested by the doctors to make sure they didn't miss anything that they could be sued for. In other words, it is not the patients or the insurance companies driving doctors to request these test, it is the medical malpractice suits that Obama refuses to address that are the driving force behind them.

Obama also tried to say that he is not endorsing a socialized medical system. Either he is lying or he is incredibly ignorant. There are people from Canada and Great Britain who know very well what a socialized medical system is and they see Obama trying to build exactly that.

Here is something to show that Obama really is pushing government run health care:

Since doctors are the ones responsible for ordering tests and procedures, health care costs cannot be brought under control unless they change their decision-making habits. ... Obama assured the doctors that his plan would provide them with objective information on what treatments work best, with new computerized tools to better manage their patient case loads, and with support for harried solo practitioners to form networks.

And how would those "decision making habits"change? Through government edict.

Although Obama avoided the term "socialized medicine" he was unable to avoid the desciption of it in his own plan.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Analysis: Doctors' Boos Show Obama's Tough Road
Richard Alonso-Zaldivar
Associated Press via Breitbart
June 15, 2009