Healthcare Horror

[Marianne Carlson]

I just read where Harry Reid et al have a clause in this healthcare bill which clearly states that this bill can NEVER be changed in any way. It is untouchable. I hope that Scott Brown becomes aware of this travesty and mentions it often in the next few weeks. What happened to our Constitution? With every passing day I become more aware how important it is that Massachusetts does not send Martha Coakley to Washington. Fight and pray, they both work. Marianne

[1stRichard]

DeMint Challenges Democrats on Rules Changes in Reid Health Bill

[Kristi L. Devine]

I don't know if what they are doing in Washington gets scarier, or more disgusting by the minute, but one thing is sure, Brown pointing it out is sure to win him favor!

[JH Griffin]

Following article from Fox mentioned several proposed legel challenges if bill goes through. Following from Sen DeMint addresses "Untouchable" issue.
************************************************
Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.

"It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection," the section says.

DeMint said he found that "particularly troubling."

"We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law," DeMint said. "I'm not even sure that it's constitutional."

[Kristi L. Devine]

Marianne YOU ROCK. Did you call in last night to Dan Rae? Thought I heard you, but if not, YOU SHOULD. Your voice is that of many.

Hey Griffin - - - what up? Look at this and this guy specializes in the Constitution!

Health Care Bill an entrenched statute?

It is reported that a provision of the proposed health care bill states:

"[I]t shall not be in order in the senate or the house of
representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or
conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

It looks like this bill is attempting to effectuate a rule change binding the current and future congresses. It could be changed again with a 2/3 vote, but would make it difficult to do so, to correct the inevitable problems that will be revealed as implementation unfolds. A repeal would likely be vetoed by Obama while he is in office, requiring a 2/3 vote of both houses to pass it over his veto, so the effect would be to entrench it even if Obama is not re-elected.

To my knowledge nothing like this has ever been attempted before. I would appreciate any information about previous attempts.


-- Jon

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757
512/299-5001 www.constitution. org jon.roland@constitu tion.org
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

[JH Griffin]

This doesn't sound correct but I'm sure Scott can verify. Amazing how Martha wants a "strong public option". Don't bet it won't be in the final bill Obama signs. But whoever wins the election won't be subject to the "public option". Scott's position is not exactly what I would have preferred but he shows he is listening to Massachusetts voters. Hopefully Scott can vote to kill this bill and Congress will come up with a true bi-partisan solution. Spread the word- Scott is the best choice for baby boomers and older. It's not the cost, it's the decline in the quality of our health care which is more important to me.