Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Obama Citizenship Blogs -> The Right Side of Life

Obama Citizenship

: The Right Side of Life

PelosiCare Passes House in Prep for Senate Battle, Filibuster Threats

By Phil

Last night, not too long after 10:00pm et, the House passed HR3962, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” 220 -- 215, with a lone Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), voting for it. There is much at stake for both sides in this debate, and I’ll attempt to flesh the main points out in this posting.

There have been two main issues brought up during the course of debate on the PelosiCare bill: the “public option” (whereby Americans — except for Congress, of course — will be mandated to pay for public health insurance if they don’t already have private insurance, at least for as long as private insurers remain in business) and the abortion issue.

I’ll touch on the public option further down in the posting; on the abortion front, Jeff Schreiber at AmericasRight.com perfectly summed up what might have been the perfect “Shell Game” by the Democrats regarding federal funds for this horrific concept:

Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats just got played. Plain and simple. 

The provision providing federal funding of abortion was in there only so it would draw the ire of Republicans and constituents, setting up a situation where its being stricken from the bill in one way or another would assuage Republicans like Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao and Blue Dog Democrats enough to think that they could vote in favor of the monstrosity. And doing just that, perceiving the bill to be somehow toothless without the abortion provisions, shows that those of us on the beltway just weren’t being listened to.

Don’t you get it, you fools on Capitol Hill? The use of federal funds for abortions is already illegal, thanks to the Hyde Amendment [my added link]. Those of you who expressed misgivings about the bill and voted for it only after the Stupak-Pitts Amendment [my added link] was adopted got played by Democrats who simply were upholding current law by adopting the measure that would prevent federal funding of abortions.

In other words, the Democrats used the amendment as a face-saving maneuver for those in their own caucus to show that, somehow, they were going to limit federal funds for abortions, even though federal funds to this day cannot be directly used for abortions. And now my dear readers now know the truth behind this charade, and as more concerned citizens learn of this truth, its effectiveness will continue to be diminished.

Nevertheless, the Stupak Amendment was important to garner sympathy for the lone GOP Representative who actually voted for the bill, Mr. Cao, who apparently continues to reel from the effects of hurricane Katrina (h/t TheHill):

“If the Stupak amendment hadn?t passed he would have voted ‘no,’ if it did pass it?d serve his main problem with the bill. He did the right thing,” [Arkansas Rep. Don] Young told The Hill. 

As soon as the House started the final vote for the day, Cao voted and dashed out the side of the chamber, plugging his ears in jest when reporters approached to find out what happened.

According to a written statement released later that night, Cao explained that Obama had promised to help out the lawmaker?s district still devastated from Hurricane Katrina.

?Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals,? Cao wrote.

So, how is all of this going to play out, going forward?

From a parliamentary standpoint, the process has only begun in terms of actually shaping this legislation. It must now go to the Senate, where it will have to meet up with the Senate’s own, distinctly separate version of a healthcare bill (or the House version be offered as a substitute), voted on, and then that version will likely have to be reconciled with a Conference between the House and Senate versions. And then both Houses will have to vote on it at least one more time.

However, politically speaking and, as usual, for most pieces of legislation that are as all-encompassing as this bill is, the path to a presidential signature is going to be long, rough, and completely uphill. As HotAir.com explains:

So what does this 220-215 vote tell us? Capitol Hill Democrats know that this bill is an albatross. It?s true that Pelosi was able at the end to negotiate votes to allow a few at-risk Democrats that supported the bill to oppose it in the final vote, but even that tells a tale of fear and consciousness of unpopularity. The razor-thin vote, as well as a number of earlier, more sincere defections, show that this bill was a radical and expensive approach to fix a 13% problem ? and even most of the Democrats know it.

Now the focus swings to the Senate, where Harry Reid will have to gain supermajorities at least twice to allow the bill to proceed to a final vote. That seems unlikely, although not impossible. The process will slow down considerably from the jam-down Pelosi conducted in the lower chamber, perhaps even to a crawl if Tom Coburn makes good on his threat to have the bill read in its entirety on the Senate floor. That will leave plenty of time for ObamaCare opponents to find all of the taxes, mandates, and government intrusions that will make it even less popular as it sits in the Senate. Even before Coburn?s threat, Democrats had pushed expectations for the bill out to late January ? which makes the politics of the bill even more fraught for Democrats, at the start of an election year.

Democrats have another problem, even in the House. The Senate is not considering the Pelosi plan, but one they wrote themselves. Unless Reid pulls his own bill out of consideration and substitutes Pelosi?s ? which is a possibility ? that sets up a conference committee and second vote in each chamber, assuming that the Senate passes anything at all. If that happens, a conference committee will have to meet to produce another bill that would then go for a full floor vote in each chamber. If abortion funding makes its way back into the bill, or if mandates or taxes increase, or if conscience protections get stripped, then all of the hurdles that Pelosi barely cleared the first time return, and without the ability to amend the bill (conference reports get straight up-or-down votes without amendments in order to have both chambers pass identical legislation for the President to sign.) That means another shot at a filibuster and a lengthy bill reading in the Senate, and at least a chance to hold Bart Stupak?s pro-life coalition in the House under the spotlight to find out whether they will vote their conscience or bow to Pelosi.

In fact, not only is Sen. Coburn on the warpath, but so is Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT; h/t GatewayPundit), going to the point of promising a filibuster of a bill containing a public option:

The takeaway moment:

Wallace: So, at this point, I take it you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?

Lieberman: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.

Further, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also promises to fight for a filibuster alongside Sen. Lieberman against a public option bill (CBSNews):

“Just look at how it passed; it passed 220 to 215. It passed by two votes. You had [39] Democrats vote against the bill,” Graham told “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer Sunday.

He also admitted that if it were to come down to it, he would join his independent colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in filibustering a bill including the so-called public option should it come to the Senate floor.

“The House bill is a non-starter in the Senate,” he added. “I just think the construct out of the House and what exists in the Senate is not going to pass, and I hope and pray it doesn’t because it would be a disaster for the economy and health care,” Graham concluded.

Graham believed a public option would “destroy” private health care, saying that insurance companies could not compete against the lower premiums of a government-backed plan. “It will be a death blow to private choice,” he said.

In the same article, Mr. Schieffer asked Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) about his views from the majority’s perspective:

“I believe we are going to pass health care reform,” Reed responded. “I believe we must do this because it’s essential to not just the quality of life here but our economic success in the future.

“Senator Reid, Harry Reid has introduced the public option and there is strong support there. but we are far from the end of the debate in the Senate. It will take time. It will be careful, thorough and deliberate.

“I hope that a public option is in the final bill,” he added.

Notice the continued non-committal to a public option by the Democrats? I, too, found the silence to be deafening, and I think that’s part of the reason why this debate is truly only now getting underway.

Everyone needs to be aware that, in America, there is a difference between “healthcare” and “health insurance.” Everyone already has access to healthcare in this country; yes, that is the proverbial elephant in the room. By law, if you cannot be seen for whatever reason in a private doctor’s office, any hospital — any hospital — in America is required to see you. Therefore, is it simply a lie to say that not everyone has access to healthcare.

On the other hand, health insurance isn’t presently available to everyone, because either (1) it’s too expensive, (2) an employer doesn’t offer it, or (3) some individuals simply do not want it. However, let’s not put the proverbial cart before the horse on this concept, either. The key question for point number one (which would subsequently take care of point number two) is: why is insurance “too” expensive?

While I don’t claim to be an expert on this issue, I do know some closely-associated individuals who work in the medical industry, close enough to insurance companies to know what happens on a day-to-day basis. From what I gather, here are some currently outstanding issues that really ought to be addressed in any reasonable health insurance legislation:

• Make the insurance plan portable and individual. Don’t restrict plans on a State-to-State basis. If the interested individual wishes to participate in a plan offered by another State, why not allow that individual to so participate? Furthermore, why restrict insurance coverage to that person while at a particular company? Why not allow the individual to take advantage of a favorable tax situation that would come from maintaining their own plan, thereby being able to “port” it from employer to employer?
• Form a co-op that would mitigate “pre-existing conditions.” Realistically, insurance companies don’t like dealing with individuals who carry a higher chance of requiring massive amounts of monies to cover their health issues than the “average” insured individual; face it — the company is there to make money, and a higher degree of risk potentially puts the company at higher risk for bigger payouts. How to deal? Simply put, the States and the People ought to have a “high-risk” pool that would help to offset these costs.
• Diminish malpractice lawsuits. This one’s a toughy, but I think it must be dealt with as a part of an overall health insurance package. In my view, we ought to leave it up to the States to deal with punitive damage caps to jury awards (while nobody likes a bad doctor who permanently alters your body over a botched procedure, it’s also not good that every doctor must operate under the auspices that their practice, too, could be summarily shut down over a sue-happy patient population).

Naturally, the biggest issue I have with this entire federal concept of mandated insurance coverage is just that — I have to be covered whether I choose to be covered or not. Unfortunately, it should not be too surprising — especially with what I typically cover on my blog and congressional responses thereto — that Speaker Pelosi appears to not care less whether or not such a mandate is constitutional (CNSNews.com):

CNSNews.com has asked a number of lawmakers as well as White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs about this issue in recent days, receiving varying answers, including statements expressing the belief that it is not a serious question.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), for example, said to CNSNews.com, “Are you serious? Are you serious?,” when she was asked where specifically the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. In response to the same question, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.), said, “I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

…nor does the White House:

When White House Spokesman Gibbs was asked about critics who are questioning the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, he said, “I won’t be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe there’s a lot of--I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they’re commentating on.” Later, Gibbs said he did not know if the White House had done any legal analysis to determine if there was a constitutional basis for mandating that Americans buy insurance.

…not even Mr. Obama’s replacement in the Senate could get it right:

Sen. Roland Burris (D.-Ill.) cited the part of the Constitution that he said tells Congress ”to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country? as justification for forcing Americans to buy health insurance.  The word “health” appears nowhere in the Constitution, however, and Burris’s spokesman later told CNSNews.com that what Burris meant is that the Preamble to the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals buy health care.  The preamble says: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.?

Bottom line: If you think that healthcare is a right, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, it’s not a constitutional one and is better left up to the States or the People. If you think that healthcare is a service that is rendered unto you by professionals who honestly care about helping you to provide yourself with better well-being, then you’re probably closer to the truth on this issue.

Nobody is saying that the healthcare industry in America is perfect or not in need of reform; in fact, as I’ve just outlined, I do believe it does. I simply don’t think it’s the federal government’s responsibility to provide a resultant nanny state for that coverage. Much could be done that would cost next to nothing to implement.

What’s next? Never stop contacting your House Members and Senators regarding this bill. The Majority knows this issue is a close one, and it is only by grassroots pressure that the Minority is going to get anything accomplished at this point.

So, let’s start with the obvious — the listing of the Blue Dogs who voted for the bill (h/t JumpingInPools):

Congressman Arcuri -- New York’s 24th congressional district -- R+2.
Congressman Baca -- California’s 43rd congressional district -- D+13.
Congressman Berry -- Arkansas 1st congressional district -- R+8.
Congressman Bishop -- Georgia’s 2nd congressional district -- D+1.
Congressman Boswell -- Iowa’s 3rd congressional district -- D+1.
Congressman Cardoza -- California’s 18th congressional district -- D+4.
Congressman Carney -- Pennsylvania’s 10th congressional district -- R+8.
Congressman Cooper -- Tennessee’s 5th congressional district -- D+3.
Congressman Costa -- California’s 20th congressional district -- D+5.
Congressman Cuellar -- Texas’ 28th congressional district. -- EVEN.
Congresswoman Dahlkemper -- Pennsylvania’s 3rd congressional district -- R+3.
Congressman Donnelly -- Indiana’s 2nd congressional district -- R+2.
Congressman Ellsworth -- Indiana’s 8th congressional district -- R+8.
Congresswoman Giffords -- Arizona’s 8th congressional district -- R+4.
Congresswoman Harman -- California’s 36th congressional district -- D+12.
Congressman Hill -- Indiana’s 9th congressional district -- R+6.
Congressman Mechaud -- Maine’s 2nd congressional district -- D+3.
Congressman Mitchell -- Arizona’s 5th congressional district -- R+5.
Congressman Moore -- Kansas 3rd congressional district -- R+3.
Congressman Murphy -- Pennsylvania’s 8th congressional district -- D+2.
Congressman Pomeroy -- North Dakota’s at-large congressional district -- R+10.
Congressman Salazar -- Colorado’s 3rd congressional district -- R+5.
Congresswoman Sanchez -- California’s 47th congressional district -- D+4.
Congressman Schiff -- California’s 29th congressional district -- D+14.
Congressman Scott -- Georgia’s 13th congressional district -- D+15.
Congressman Space -- Ohio’s 18th congressional district -- R+7.
Congressman Thompson -- California’s 1st congressional district -- D+13.
Congressman Wilson -- Ohio’s 6th congressional district -- R+2.

Along with this listing, much yeoman’s work is being performed by TaxDayTeaParty.com; Eric Odom and the team there have been accomplishing incredible things on the grassroots front. The organization is presently in the process of putting together some very big things. If you’re interested in what’s going on, and to help out, click on the link and go from there.

While the bill has a long way to go before it hits the President’s desk, concerned citizens have been and will continue to speak up now about their interests in this debate. Remember: the President already thinks you’re an extremist if you side against this bill. That’s OK. Per the Constitution, he only has certain powers and authority; we, the People, retain all rights. Also remember that nobody has the Constitutional right to be offended, either.

So, go ahead and be an “extremist;” it’s your right and privilege. If the opposition gets offended by that, then simply remind them that if this government takeover of healthcare passes anywhere close to its present form, their personal insurance coverage will ultimately be decided by Republicans in Congress as well!

Update:

Duane Lester at AllAmericanBlogger has posted even more links on this story here.

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

Photo courtesy AmericasRight

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on November 08, 2009 (boomark / email).