“There is no “government takeover of health care” here.”

Denial.

It is far too much for most Americans. LESS regulation, not more, is the best course.

rpt: Fixed by whom? The R’s have never and will never do anything meaningful. We have about a 60 year track record of nothing.

You’re really hung up on hating Republicans, aren’t you?

Once more: I’m not saying that our current system of health-care coverage is perfect, far from it. However, its problems can be fixed without nationalizing it.

Fixed by whom? The R’s have never and will never do anything meaningful. We have about a 60 year track record of nothing. When the D’s try anything we hear the end of the world chorus, as now.

Stick to reality. There is no “government takeover of health care” here. The insurance companies remain in control with some improvements.

The “election trend” is still D 59 and R 41 in the Senate, with a smaller majority in the house. There is a lot of political reality beyond the talking points.

Paul of Alexandria:
Right here, why? Nothing unconstitutional going on so far as I can tell, except for the actions of the Democrats.

Thank you for the clearest answer so far. It’s not what is done but who is doing it that leads to the result. Two wrongs don’t make a right but if it’s being done by Democrats it’s always wrong.

While the ultimate power is in the hands of the electorate, I’m not against the SCOTUS enforcing the letter of the Constitution against abuse by the legislative branch. In fact, I consider it their responsibility. If that fails, prior to the elections, our next remedy, which we may exercise in any case, is by voting.

Of course, we’ll only cover a third of the senators – this time.

Mr. rpt,

If you read carefully my original posting, I was clear in using the wording “by their own rules” several times. The election trend line is, I think you will agree, against the government takeover of health care.

************************************************************

I will add that BOTH sides are talking around a key issue – excessive and unaffordable entitlements for health care ALREADY.

Sarcastro: To heck with people who compare Sweden and Norway’s health care systems to the US, Argentina is the closest comparison, what with their recovering from 25 years of stagflation!

Please tell me what indication you have that we’d end up with a system like Norway’s? The indications are that we’d get one more like England’s. And in any case, why should I do your research for you. Go, study the various systems, and come back and convince me why I should want such a thing.
I Don’t Want to Be a Norwegian

Like all socialized medical systems, Norway’s system has two problems: care is rationed, and lines are long. Health Care Around the World: Norway. One pertinent item: “Norwegians can opt out of the the government system and pay out-of-pocket. Many pay out-of-pocket and travel to a foreign country for medical care when waiting lists are long.” Guess where they usually travel to?

Once more: I’m not saying that our current system of health-care coverage is perfect, far from it. However, its problems can be fixed without nationalizing it.

rpt: Where were you from 1994–2006?

Right here, why? Nothing unconstitutional going on so far as I can tell, except for the actions of the Democrats.

rpt: And where were you during the Gingrich-Hastert deem and pass several hundred times era?

First of all, two wrongs don’t make a right; most left-wingers seem to think that Conservative = Republican. Secondly, I believe that a close look at what actually happened there indicates that those cases bear little resemblance to the current one.

bill-tb: Our entire Constitution, rests on defined written procedures — And none are clearer than how Bills become Law. Nation of laws, not of men, repeat right before Obama speaks. Removing these Constitutional procedures reduces America to the equivalent of the ordinary two-bit tin pot run, president for life democracy, like Saddam’s Iraq, or Chavez’s Venezuela. Heck even Stalin claimed a democracy, “peace jobs and democracy” was his May Day theme.America will cease to exist as we know it, if these parliamentary tricks are allowed to stand.The revolutionary war was fought because England was stealing the economic freedoms of the Americans.

And where were you during the Gingrich-Hastert deem and pass several hundred times era?

Whitehall: Mr. Cooke,“Try to wiggly around or overrule precedent to strike down healthcare reform that their party clearly does not like”Make that the voters, not the party. The voters are the only source of government legitimacy. Remember what brought us here.The Senate passed a bill, by their own rules.An election happened focused on that very bill and now the Senate could not pass that same bill, again, according to their own rules.The House is now considering the Senate bill, the one that couldn’t be passed by the Senate today — BECAUSE OF AN ELECTION.But the House members don’t want to pass the Senate bill now either — because of upcoming ELECTIONS.The Senate would not today pass the House bill either.The whole procedure is being implemented to get AROUND the will of the ELECTORATE as expressed by recent voting and as projected by many Congressmen facing re-election.It is well understood by the players and the electorate that the Senate bill does NOT have the support of the majority of voters.So, the response by Democratic Party leadership is SCREW YOU, VOTERS!WE’LL JUST FAKE IT.So maybe the SCOTUS would step in and correct this and maybe they won’t.The real remedy is at the polls where elected officials who vote for this will have to face their bosses.

The Republicans are winning 41-59. The new math in action.

Paul of Alexandria:
Ah, but is this change in fact the will of the people? Are the majority of the people even aware of what is being done behind their backs? Has this change been properly debated and considered or is it being foisted upon the American people in spite of their opinions and long-held beliefs? I observe that it is not. That a great deal of effort has been spent by the Progressive left in hiding their true agenda, in cloaking it under a mask of representative democracy, and that when the American People find out the consequences of what has been done they will be very, very angry. Let’s be very clear here: the issue isn’t just the “shenanigans” going on in Congress, it is the fact that a few people are trying to change the fundamental nature of this country for our “greater good,” in spite of the wishes and opinions of the majority, and towards the end of a tyranny in which they rule.

Where were you from 1994-2006?

Second, the latest news I read (from an AP article) was that the “deem and pass” procedure was being attached to the motion to take up the reconciliation bill and not the bill itself, meaning that the House would not be passing two legislative items with a single vote. The Senate bill would have been deemed to pass, and then the House would separately vote on reconciliation. Nonetheless, I still think this is unconstitutional because there was no vote on the text of the Senate bill. What happens, for example, if a Representative didn’t get the memo that his or her procedural vote to take up one bill would be “deemed” by the leadership as a vote for an actual legislative item? I don’t think that the requirement that legislation be passed by a vote of yeas and nays can be squared with a procedure that passes a bill by the operation of a rule, rather than a direct vote on the bill itself.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by nikolaz02: Jonathan Adler looks at “Deem & Pass” over at the Volokh Conspiracy. http://bit.ly/b1tmiv...

ELC:

[Would you care to engage my point that a majority of both houses will be for the language in the passed bill, thus satisfying the Constitution?]

OrenWithAnE: And here I was thinking that the US was not founded on a particular market ideology but as a republican nation whose people retain the sovereign right to make their own policy. What a surprise it will be to Jefferson when you (resurrect him and) explain that The People are not, in fact, sovereign but beholden to some fundamental principles that they are powerless to change.

If you change the Constitution enough, sure.

Sarcastro:
[No, it won’t pass by a straight up or down vote....]

Thank you!

Then the Health Bill would require only 51 votes.

Clarence Thomas should recuse himself because of his wife, and the Chief Justice should be not allowed to sit on any case involving a law Obama signed because from his whiny and childish comments about how mean Obama was to them at the State of the Union it is obvious he will be biased against Obama. Plus, since Obama was one of the few Senators that saw right through Roberts and smartly voted against an obviously unqualified judge, Roberts is looking for any petty reasons to stick to Obama. Of course, what did Bush care, since his whole administration was filled with incompetent boobs that couldn’t run a cattle ranch.

David: And when the House calls for a voice vote the clerk records that the Yeas have it and off they go. Again totally ignoring the Constitution

Can’t do that – the Constitution requires the votes by Named Persons be recorded.

That a great deal of effort has been spent by the Progressive left in hiding their true agenda, in cloaking it under a mask of representative democracy, and that when the American People find out the consequences of what has been done they will be very, very angry.

And I will not at all dispute if they elect a future Congress that will repeal the bill.

I will dispute your assertion that this Congress does not have the mandate to pass laws as much as the last and the next.

Paul of Alexandria: Not all change is good, not all changes are to be desired. (I would, BTW, argue that Medicare — and Medicaid, and Social Security — were not good ideas,

Yes, the argument for health care is that all change is good! Way to engage in the debate! (The key to good debating is always keeping things as general as possible, like “is change good?” or “What is America?”

To heck with people who compare Sweden and Norway’s health care systems to the US, Argentina is the closest comparison, what with their recovering from 25 years of stagflation!

And then, as icing on the cake, you assume the conclusion that health care reform will “demonstrably will lower our standards of living, reduce our economic well being, and eliminate almost everything that makes this country a desirable place in which to live!”

Wow, why would you every want to beat your wife, Paul of Alexandria?

Sarcastro: Such a useful argument! America should never change! Slavery, Jim-Crow, Women voting, Medicare, all fundamentally changing America, AND unpopular with the people when they were passed!!

Now you’re talking like a troll, and a fool.
Have you carefully considered all of the implications and consequences of this change? Not all change is good, not all changes are to be desired. (I would, BTW, argue that Medicare – and Medicaid, and Social Security – were not good ideas, since by their very design they are financially nonviable).

I look around at other nations that have traveled this path and I see only misery and disaster.

A friend sent me this e-mail, which illustrates the point:

In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. While Great Britain’s maritime power and its far-flung empire had propelled it to a dominant position among the world’s industrialized nations, only the United States challenged Argentina for the position of the world’s second-most powerful economy. It was blessed with abundant agriculture, vast swaths of rich farmland laced with navigable rivers and an accessible port system. Its level of industrialization was higher than many European countries: railroads, automobiles and telephones were commonplace.

In 1916, a new president was elected. Hipólito Irigoyen, formed a party called ‘The Radicals’ under the banner of “fundamental change” with an appeal to the middle class: “Fundamental change.” Among Irigoyen’s changes: mandatory pension insurance, mandatory health insurance, and support for low-income housing construction to stimulate the economy. Put simply, the state assumed economic control of a vast swath of the country’s operations and began assessing new payroll taxes to fund its efforts.

With an increasing flow of funds into these entitlement programs, the government’s payouts soon became overly generous. Before long its outlays surpassed the value of the taxpayers’ contributions. Put simply, it quickly became under-funded, much like our Social Security and Medicare programs.

The death knell for the Argentine economy, however, came with the election of Juan Perón. Perón had a fascist and corporatist upbringing; he and his charismatic wife aimed their populist rhetoric at the nation’s rich. his targeted group “swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated.” Under Perón, the size of government bureaucracies exploded
through massive programs of social spending and by encouraging the growth of labor unions.

High taxes and economic mismanagement took their inevitable toll even after Perón had been driven from office. But his populist rhetoric and “contempt for economic realities” lived on. Argentina’s federal government continued to spend far beyond its means. Hyperinflation exploded in 1989, the final stage of a process characterized by
“industrial protectionism, redistribution of income based on increased wages, and growing state intervention in the economy…”

The Argentinean government’s practice of printing money to pay off its public debts, crushed the economy. Inflation hit 3000%, reminiscent of the Weimar Republic. Food riots were rampant; stores were looted; the country descended into chaos.

And by 1994, Argentina ‘s public pensions – the equivalent of Social Security – had imploded. The payroll tax had increased from 5% to 26%, but it wasn’t enough. In addition, Argentina had implemented a value-added tax (VAT), new income taxes, a personal tax on wealth, and additional revenues based upon the sale of public enterprises. These crushed the private sector, further damaging the economy. A government-controlled “privatization” effort to rescue seniors’ pensions as attempted. INSTEAD, by 2001, those funds had also been raided by the government, the monies replaced by Argentina’s defaulted government bonds. By 2002, “…government fiscal irresponsibility…induced a national economic crisis as severe as America ‘s Great Depression.”

(credit: Brian Depper)

Again: why do you want to bring changes to this country that demonstrably will lower our standards of living, reduce our economic well being, and eliminate almost everything that makes this country a desirable place in which to live?

Paul of Alexandria: Let’s be very clear here: the issue isn’t just the “shenanigans” going on in Congress, it is the fact that a few people are trying to change the fundamental nature of this country for our “greater good,” in spite of the wishes and opinions of the majority, and towards the end of a tyranny in which they rule.

Such a useful argument! America should never change! Slavery, Jim-Crow, Women voting, Medicare, all fundamentally changing America, AND unpopular with the people when they were passed!!

It’s like I don’t even know where I live anymore!

Sarcastro: Paul of Alexandria: This whole process has been full of lies and deceits from the very beginning, at the start of the 20th century.

Illuminati?

No, socialists.

OrenWithAnE: What a surprise it will be to Jefferson when you (resurrect him and) explain that The People are not, in fact, sovereign but beholden to some fundamental principles that they are powerless to change.

Ah, but is this change in fact the will of the people? Are the majority of the people even aware of what is being done behind their backs? Has this change been properly debated and considered or is it being foisted upon the American people in spite of their opinions and long-held beliefs? I observe that it is not. That a great deal of effort has been spent by the Progressive left in hiding their true agenda, in cloaking it under a mask of representative democracy, and that when the American People find out the consequences of what has been done they will be very, very angry.

Let’s be very clear here: the issue isn’t just the “shenanigans” going on in Congress, it is the fact that a few people are trying to change the fundamental nature of this country for our “greater good,” in spite of the wishes and opinions of the majority, and towards the end of a tyranny in which they rule.

And more than that, this bill would represent a fundamental change away from the principles upon which this nation was founded towards a European-style socialist economy.

And here I was thinking that the US was not founded on a particular market ideology but as a republican nation whose people retain the sovereign right to make their own policy.

What a surprise it will be to Jefferson when you (resurrect him and) explain that The People are not, in fact, sovereign but beholden to some fundamental principles that they are powerless to change.

If congress can define what it means to vote on a bill then what is to stop a majority from defining voting as whatever the leadership desired. So if the leadership deemed a bill passed, or even help a voice vote on a deemed passed bill and the chair at the time (one of the leadership team) banged the gavel and said the yea’s have it even though they are clearly in the minority (and I have seen this happen on the floor), then what is the difference between that and tyranny?

The difference is that a majority can re-caucus at any time to remove those leaders. Heck, the Blue Dog Dems could defect (en masse) and elect Boehner as the new Speaker.

So long as Pelosi has the gavel, she is acting with the implicit approval (by virtue of their non-removal of her) of the majority.

And, all the more on the paramount issue of this Congressional Session, in this election year.

Paul of Alexandria: This whole process has been full of lies and deceits from the very beginning, at the start of the 20th century.

Illuminati?

Whitehall: egitimacy.
Remember what brought us here. The Senate passed a bill, by their own rules. An election happened focused on that very bill and now the Senate could not pass that same bill, again, according to their own rules.

And more than that, this bill would represent a fundamental change away from the principles upon which this nation was founded towards a European-style socialist economy. This whole process has been full of lies and deceits from the very beginning, at the start of the 20th century.