Government Takeover of Health Care

Democrats May Use Procedural Tactic to Ram Through Health-Care Bill

August 23, 2009

CNSNews.com – Conservative leader Gary Bauer warned Wednesday that Democratic leaders in Congress will try to ram through their unpopular health-care reform plan later this fall, employing a little-used tactic first conceived as a way to maneuver around the budget deficit battles of the 1980s.

“I’m afraid that they (Democratic leaders) will do it because I’m convinced that the people running America are intent on changing America in ways that will not be reversible,” Bauer told CNSNews.com.

The tactic, known as “reconciliation,” is designed to get around the filibuster, a Senate procedure used to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority.

“When you have a filibuster, it takes 60 Senate votes to pass something,” Bauer said. “The Democrats don’t have 60 votes that they can count on for the health-care bill, making reconciliation all the more likely,” Bauer said.

“It’s a little esoteric, but the bottom line is that they will be able to ram this through with just 51 votes,” Bauer added.

The controversial 1,000-page bill overhauling the nation's health-care system is currently before Congress, which remains in recess until September.

If liberal Democrats do force through the legislation over the significant objections of conservatives, the former Republican presidential candidate says the minority party should be prepared to shut down the Senate.

“The only remedy for this, is for the minority in Congress...to make it clear that if this is used on such a major piece of legislation, that the minority Republicans will literally shut down the Senate by using parliamentary maneuvers, and so forth--so that literally nothing else will pass this year and next, until there is another election,” Bauer, who is president of the group American Values, said.

“That would turn Washington into an even more partisan battleground, but it may be the only solution to the threat that’s being rumored right now,” Bauer added.

Reconciliation is an option that was created in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act to allow Congress a way out of intractable budget battles.

Wesleyan University government professor Elvin Lim said it was invented as a way to achieve a balanced budget--not to force through highly controversial legislation.

“It wasn’t passed to allow Congress to go ahead and do anything it wants, but as it turns out, that’s the way it’s been used, quite frankly, by both sides of the aisle,” Lim told CNSNews.com.

In fact, he said, President George W. Bush was the last to utilize the tactic--getting Congress to pass tax cuts three times in ‘01, ‘03 and ’05--because he wanted to bypass a Senate filibuster by Democrats.

The budget reconciliation process is a two-stage process. First, reconciliation “directives” must be included in the annual budget resolution. In fact, directives for the health-care reform bill were placed in the 2010 budget resolution, which was passed April 29.

If utilized for the health-care bill, House and Senate committees would be ordered to develop a final version of the legislation by a specific date (in this case, Oct. 15) to meet certain spending or revenue targets. The committees would then send their legislative recommendations to their respective budget committees, who would be tasked with packaging all recommendations into one omnibus reconciliation bill.

The resulting bill would be fast-tracked and sent to the floor of both chambers of Congress for debate. A 20-hour limit is placed on debate of any measure considered under the reconciliation process, which effectively strips the minority party of the filibustering option in the Senate.

“The bottom line here is that this reconciliation procedure allows the Senate to bypass its normal filibuster procedure of 60 votes--and instead only requires 51 votes for passage of bills,” Lim said.

That means the Democrats could pass health-care reform in the Senate with a simple majority.

Lim, however, said the procedure has a downside. Any measure passed under the reconciliation procedure will be “sunsetted”--meaning, it would automatically expire when it reaches a cutoff date.

“They may get what they want, but it’s only going to last 10 years, if they go the reconciliation route,” Lim said.

In fact, Lim said Democrats are counting on having the 10 years to sell the public that their health-care reform doesn’t mean that the system is going to fall apart.

“If Americans are happy with the health care, and health-care costs go down, as Democrats promised, then there may be room for an extension of the sunset provision,” Lim told CNSNews.com. “If things go awry, then obviously Republicans would be able to say ‘I told you so.’”

House and Senate Democratic leaders are being pushed towards reconciliation from two directions, Lim said.

“They know they cannot get many Republicans on the public option, but they also know they are going to lose their liberal base if they don’t go for a public option, they are forced into rather narrow band of being not too far to the left while not offending the right,” Lim added.

Ironically, the White House is even thinking of bringing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in for behind-the-scenes politicking on the health bill, Lim said.

“I don’t think they (Democrats) fathomed the depth of antipathy to the possibility of a public option in health care, I honestly don’t think they foresaw this. They thought that it was going to be relatively easy because they had this grand mandate from the 2008 elections,” Lim said.

But Lim warned Democratic leaders not to underestimate the extent of opposition to the public option. Townhall outrage and tea parties have not been ginned up by the opposition, he said, but reflect a huge subterranean split in America that goes all the way back to the founding of the country.

“It’s a fundamental divide,” Lim said. “I think it goes to the heart of America. Think about it – what was the first political debate Americans ever had? It was about the state – how are we going to trust a federal government and how much power are we going to give to it. The health-care debate sits exactly on that tectonic.”

If the Democratic leadership uses the reconciliation process about such a major bill, what then?

“It’s only going to reinforce the conservatives’ and Blue Dog Democrats’ belief that (liberal) Democrats insist on having their way – they are intolerant of alternate conceptions of what the state should look like,” Lim said.

Bauer, meanwhile, predicts that the Obama administration will insist upon using reconciliation.

“These are Chicago machine politicians -- people who are used to playing incredible hardball, of ramming through what they want, no matter the cost.”

Obama Sets Stage for Using Budget Maneuver to Pass Health Reform

September 11, 2009

The Hill - President Barack Obama this week has been laying the foundation for Senate Democrats to use a controversial budget maneuver to pass healthcare reform.

By offering Republicans olive branches during his address to Congress on Wednesday, Obama has set up a win-win situation. If GOP lawmakers embrace compromise, a healthcare bill would pass Congress easily. But the more likely scenario is that Republicans will continue to oppose Obama’s plan, and the president later this fall will be able to note he tried to strike a deal with the GOP but could not.

That will set up a Democratic argument that Senate leaders have been forced to use a partisan budget tool known as reconciliation to pass a health bill through the Senate by a simple majority, instead of 60 votes. Under the budget plan they passed earlier this year, Democrats could invoke the reconciliation process on Oct. 15...

Democrats Pledge More Cuts in Medicare to Fund Obama’s Health Care Overhaul

September 12, 2009

WSWS - Democratic leaders in the House and Senate expressed their support for the Obama administration’s plans for the overhaul of health care, as outlined in the president’s speech Wednesday. The ongoing talks outside of public view center on finding more ways to cut costs through amendments to the existing proposals.

On all the policy aspects of his speech, Obama came down in favor of the more right-wing bill being drafted by the Senate Finance Committee under Democratic Chairman Max Baucus. Baucus hopes to reach an agreement that would lead to a vote in the Senate by early October.

“Our health care problem is our deficit problem,” Obama said on Wednesday, making clear that the administration sees changes in health care as the principle means to cut government spending. “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid” was at the center of the plan, Obama said. While Obama denied it, this in fact will mean significant cuts in services for the poor and the elderly.

How these cuts will be made and additional steps that may be taken are now subject to discussion.

“Many of the details will be worked out in the legislative process,” White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said on Thursday. “From Day One, we have laid out several very specific options from within the system and to raise revenue to pay for health care … What should be crystal clear is that the president is 100 percent committed to signing a health reform bill that does not add a dime to the deficit.”

As New York Times columnist David Brooks explained on Friday, the principles outlined in Obama’s speech mean that:

“There will be a seller’s market for any member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, who has a credible amendment to cut costs. It also means the Democrats will have to scale back coverage and subsidy levels to reach the fiscal targets.” (See, “Times columnist David Brooks exposes ‘left’ supporters of Obama health plan”)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed her support for this cost-cutting agenda on Thursday:

“Half the bill will be paid for by squeezing excesses out of the [Medicare and Medicaid] system,” she said, “and there is $500 billion dollars to do that and we’re looking for more. That can be achieved—waste, fraud, redundancy, obsolescence, whatever it is.”

Reference to fraud and waste is the form in which a sweeping attack on these entitlement programs is being prepared. Similar denunciations of “welfare fraud” were promoted in the run-up to the gutting of welfare programs under the Clinton administration.

An article in the Washington Post on Friday (“Details Still Lacking on Obama Proposal”) referred to a report from the White House proposing to set up “a new commission to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare.” The author noted that “some aides said the proposal would give the panel authority to advance much broader changes in coverage and reimbursement rates.”

Discussions about “these broader changes in coverage and reimbursement rates” are taking place entirely behind the backs of the American people.

Some media commentators have been more explicit in pointing out that the cuts Obama is demanding will mean real reductions in care. Clive Crook, the right-wing columnist for the Financial Times, wrote in a blog posted Thursday,

“The idea that cuts of the necessary size can be found, as [Obama] says, entirely by cutting ‘waste and inefficiency’ is implausible. Obama tried hard to reassure Medicare beneficiaries that they have nothing to fear from this reform. I doubt that he succeeded, but we will see.”

The main criticism of Obama’s proposal is now coming from some Democrats and Republicans who want to see more explicit measures for cutting costs. On Thursday, Obama met with a group of “moderate” Democrats. While the content of the discussion was not officially released, media reports indicate that it was focused on finding ways to more aggressively pare spending.

Democratic Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin said after the meeting, “I don’t think we’re focusing enough on costs.”

Leading Democrats also indicated Thursday that they were willing to accept a bill that does not include a “public option.” House Democrats in particular have urged Obama to include a government-run plan, in part to make it easier to sell the measure as some sort of progressive reform.

In fact, as Obama indicated on Wednesday, the public option would be very weak and would not challenge the profit interests of insurance companies. Nevertheless, he said he would accept a bill without the option, or one which kept such a plan in reserve, to be “triggered” only if markets were deemed insufficiently “competitive.”

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs repeated on Thursday that Obama’s speech “reiterated the public option is not the be-all, end-all of health care reform.”

When asked about whether the public option is non-negotiable, Pelosi said,

“I don’t think you ever go into a negotiation saying something is non-negotiable.” On the day before Obama’s speech, Pelosi had insisted, “A public option is essential to our passing a bill.”

With or without a marginal public option, the central purpose of the health care bill—setting the stage for major cuts in health care benefits for the working class—will remain.

Personal Notes and Thoughts Written by Brannon Howse During President Obama's Speech on Health Care to the U.S. Congress

September 9, 2009

Brannon House, WorldViewTimes - Obama says his plan will not include illegal immigrants, but the 47 million he always declares as being uninsured includes illegal aliens. The President was booed when he said this and a congressman yelled, "You lie." Did you see the look on the face of Pelosi when this was going on?

I think we can all agree the system needs to be reformed, but we do not need the federal government taking over the system. That is not reform that is a revolution…it is a power-grab that puts the government in control of your life from cradle to grave. The National Center has just released a compilation of 100 stories of victims of government-run health care, "Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care."

He says no death panels. What do you call paying doctors to talk with senior citizens about their end of life decisions? Why has his man, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel), who was appointed to two important government boards to assist in drafting and passing socialized medicine, declared that healthcare should be saved for people the State deems are productive human resources, and that it should not be given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens… An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." What do you call that?

Obama said, "No government bureaucrat will get between you and the care that you need." That is a flat out lie. That is exactly what will happen. Obama seems to be telling the left that he will not demand a 100% pubic option when he said:

"The public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have."

Bloomberg news reported that in the early 2009 stimulus bill a new bureaucracy was created:

…the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions… Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effect. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effective standards set by the Federal Council. The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K board… This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for young patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly...

I think Obama is using the Hegelian Dialectic Process, which I predicted week ago is what he was doing. Obama is saying we need to merge the ideas of the left and the right for a better third option or Third Way. I have predicted that if Obama could not get what he wanted then he would allow the left and right to fight it out and then offer the third option, which makes both sides feel like they won something. In fact, Obama may have begun by wanting his plan but knowing that option C was his end game goal for now. Once he gets the option C that he is proposing, he will then start over with two views conflicting and then move again to a third option, allowing him to kick the can further down the road each time. Obama set up the conflict to bring the change just as Saul Alinksy calls for in Rules for Radicals. However, I think he will push to get 100% of what he wants but fall back on the third option.

Obama says he will not sign a bill that adds a dime to the deficit. That is not possible. He is lying again, or will he ration healthcare to the elderly to have the billions needed to fund his plan?

As Obama said there are significant things to still work out. The devil is in the details. Notice a percentage of the room laughed at him… not with him.

Obama is all about fear and creating a crisis, collapsing the economy, destroying capitalism, and making things so bad that he can merge government with business in a capitalist-welfare state, also known as Fabian Socialism or Corporate Fascism.

Obama said people were peddling fear, but about 20 minutes later he said:

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

Obama May Need Sense of Crisis to Revive Health-Care Overhaul

September 6, 2009

Bloomberg - President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis.

Facing polls showing a drop in his approval, diminished support from independents, factions within his Democratic Party and a united Republican opposition, Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.

“At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we’re not in a health-care crisis,” said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. “You do need a crisis to generate movement in Congress and to help build a consensus”...

Health Care Reform Means More Power for the IRS

September 3, 2009

Washington Examiner - There’s been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.

But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats’ health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS...