John Hood has written a very compelling article at the Carolina Journal that sums up the health control legislation’s end game. In discussing the legislative maneuvering, he makes this, I believe, accurate observation.

There is no conceivable way that the president or the leaders of Congress can legally enact their legislative monstrosity.

Instead, they are going to cheat.

And cheat they will. There’s no other way to describe it.

They are going to employ some kind of legislative trickery to pretend to pass a bill that, they now realize, will never become law through constitutional means. They may use the now-infamous Slaughter Rule, which would allow House members to claim to have voted to amend the objectionable Senate bill without actually having passed it through the House. Or they’ll come up with an even-zanier scheme, including a subsequent reconciliation process in the Senate designed to overcome the very filibuster they’ve used to block conservative bills and nominees in the past.

Here is the course of action John plans to follow in the aftermath of this mess, a plan with merit.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not planning to recognize such a result as legally binding. I’m not going to pretend to obey any dictates from federal health-care bureaucrats that have never been authorized by a constitutional vote of both houses of Congress. I will not submit to any extra-constitutional order to dismantle the consumer-driven health plan I have set up for my employees.

I will not comply. If the government tries to make me comply, I’ll sue. And I’ll win.

Please read the whole article. If you agree, there is a Facebook Page here.

The phrase that keeps popping into my head whenever I read anything about the health system takeover bill is, “how stupid do they think we are?” The rhetorical answer, sadly, is, “pretty stupid.”

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

You don’t need to know a thing about the details of this bill to know just how terrible it must be. The fact that Democrats are running such a shell game to get the bill on the President’s desk should tell you all you need to know.

But, you have to admit, the Democrats aren’t being sneaky. In fact, they are being brutally honest in their disregard for the will of the people and contempt for the Constitution.

Pelosi reportedly told liberal bloggers Monday that “nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill,” and so she’s strongly considering the non-vote vote.

“I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill,” she said.

Did you catch that? “I like it, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” Thank you San Fran Nan for telling us that you’re willing to ignore the clear wording of our Constitution.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

The phone lines, fax lines, and email on Capitol Hill have been burning up. Let’s continue that today.

Admiral Farragut Pelosi has a wonderful idea, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged her colleagues to back a major overhaul of U.S. health care even if it threatens their political careers, a call to arms that underscores the issue’s massive role in this election year.

Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program “This Week.”
“We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress,” she said. “We’re here to do the job for the American people.”

Let me be honest here, I do agree with the Speaker that the role of our elected representatives is to, “do the job for the American people” rather than get elected to Congress with the sole goal of being reelected to Congress. Where she is wrong, totally wrong, is that the direction she is heading is 180 degrees from what the American people want. She seems willing to ignore that even while acknowledging the political price.

Her comments to ABC, in the interview released Sunday, seemed to acknowledge the widely held view that Democrats will lose House seats this fall — maybe a lot. They now control the chamber 255 to 178, with two vacancies. Pelosi stopped well short of suggesting Democrats could lose their majority, but she called on members of her party to make a bold move on health care with no prospects of GOP help.

“Time is up,” she said. “We really have to go forth.”

Conservatives, and anyone who is opposed to the unaffordable cost and government control issues inherent in this plan, need to continue their opposition and education. The Speaker is wrong on this as well.

Pelosi told CNN that “in a matter of days” Democrats will have specific legislative language on health care to show to the public and to wavering lawmakers. She predicted voters will warm up to the bill once they understand its details.

“When we have a bill,” she said, “you can bake the pie, you can sell the pie. But you have to have a pie to sell.”

OK, I’m not sure where pie fits into all of this, but I am confident in this; rather than warming up to the bill once they understand the details, smart, aware Americans will run from this monstrosity when they understand the details. It is up to us to continue to educate and inform people about the economy ruining, choice killing, innovation suppressing details of the coming legislation.

The actual quote, according to WikiAnswers is: “Damn the torpedoes! Four bells! Captain Crayton, go ahead! Joucett, full speed!” Thus the title to this post.

Cross posted at The Regiment.

Yesterday I wrote about the group of conservative leaders who were questioning the constitutionality of the health reform bill. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, along with Nevada’s John Ensign, has raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.”

As part of their reasoned objection to the bill, they rely on analysis from the Heritage Foundation.

This “personal responsibility” provision of the legislation, more accurately known as the “individual mandate” because it commands all individuals to enter into a contractual relationship with a private insurance company, takes congressional power and control to a striking new level. Its defenders have struggled to justify the mandate by analogizing it to existing federal laws and court decisions, but their efforts do not withstand serious scrutiny. An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party, with tax penalties to enforce it, is unprecedented– not just in scope but in kind–and unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.

Congress has a responsibility, pursuant to the oath of all Senators and Representatives, to determine the constitutionality of its own actions independently of how the Supreme Court has previously ruled or may rule in the future. But it is very unlikely that the Court would extend current constitutional doctrines, or devise new ones, to uphold this new and unprecedented claim of federal power.

There will be a vote on this later today. Tell your Senator that you expect them to uphold their constitutional oath and vote against this unconstitutional pile of garbage.

One big issue with the Health Power Grab bill is the individual mandate which requires, with penalties for non-compliance, American citizens to purchase health insurance. There’s just one problem — there is no power granted by the Constitution that allows this.

Quin Hillyer posts a memo put out by a group of major leaders of the conservative movement.

ISSUE: Mandating that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any penalty-civil or criminal-on any private citizen for not purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision of the U.S. Constitution. As such, it is unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge on that issue. Supporters of the legislation have incorrectly contended that the legal justification for the mandate is authorized by the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, or the Taxing and Spending Clause. Given that this mandate provision is essential to Obamacare; its unconstitutionality renders the entire program untenable.

The memo lays out the legal arguments that explain the bill’s unconstitutionality. The writers call for the following:

ACTION: We urge you to make this point to members of the U.S. Senate-and if a bill passes the Senate to impress upon members of both chambers of Congress-that the key provision in the healthcare legislation violates the U.S. Constitution.

Let your legislators know that you oppose this bill. It is not too late.

The topic of tonight’s bRight@Night will be, big surprise, health care. Is it constitutional? What, if anything, can be done to stop it?

Join in by calling (718) 664-9725

That chat room will be open at 9:45, the show starts at 10:00 Eastern.

Here are my thoughts and observations about last nights town hall meeting with Fl-12 rep Adam Putnam. Driving up I was greeted by Public Option Now signs lining the entrance and parking lot. There were around a dozen public option supporters handing out material just outside the doors.

I would estimate between 150-200 people in attendance. The dress ranged from I-just-came-from-work to I’m-retired-and-this-is-what-I-wear. A good percentage appeared to be retirement age.

Adam started his remarks by saying that there are four major issues facing Congress, but I missed the fourth, and he didn’t really elaborate on the last one. Those three — Cap and Trade, Card Check, and of course, Health Care Reform. He called them “game changers,” a major shift from the way we do things as a nation.

Before taking questions he listed some of the things that he thinks should direct the debate on health care:

• Greater access
• Afforadability
• The individual, along with their health care professionals, should be the ones to make medical decisions
• Government should not limit choices
• Private insurance should remain the foundation

He had one very interesting statistical note on the expatriation rates of doctors by country. Canada has a rate above 10% and the UK is above 5% (sorry, I didn’t get the exact number). The US rate is 0.6% and most of those are doctors which have decided to go on the mission field. The numbers for nurses are similar. There is a reason that medical professionals trained here practice here.

He spent several minutes talking about how much the US spends on equipment, research, and innovation. One stat – MRI Machines: In the US there are 25 MRI machines per million people. In Canada and the UK that number is 5 per million.

One big issue is how difficult it is to project future health costs. He cited the huge difference between original CBO projections for Medicare and Medicaid and the quickly realized realities.

One point he made that I thought was particularly important, and often under discussed, is the effect federally implemented plans will have on state budgets. The impact could be a budget buster for many, if not most, states.

His suggestions for the discussion:

• Association Health Plans – where groups of people, bound by some association, could purchase insurance at group rates typically reserved for companies. Perhaps we could have the “Bloggers Health Plan”
• Malpractice Reform
• The ability to sell plans across state lines
• Electronic Medical Records. He called this the area where there is the least partisan disagreement.
• Incentivize wellness and fitness
• Small business tax incentives

He remarked that mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions without mandated participation for all can not co-exist.

He also touched on the timing of things in Congress. The House leadership has expressed a goal of bringing HC to a vote before Thanksgiving, although he believes that it may extend through the end of the year, or into early 2010. In any case, he said the issue is on a short time line. Because of the focus on HCR, he thinks that Cap and Trade and Card Check will be pushed off until early next year.

I wasn’t able to stay for all of the Q&A portion, but I did stay for the first few.

The first question got quite a bit of positive reaction from those in attendance.

Q. Is it constitutional/legal/possible for Congress to pass a bill that is not in it’s final legislative form?

A. He said that the bill, in it’s present form, is in many ways conceptual. There are at least three separate versions that are being melded in the House. The version that is eventually voted on, however, will have to be specific and final. He took the opportunity of this question to say that it is critical for the final bill to be available for people to see prior to Congress voting.

Q. This questioner likened what the government is doing as equivalent to being forced to support a particular charity.

A. His answer addressed the issue of cost in the bill, which currently range from $873 Billion to $1.3 Trillion. Cuts to Medicare could be $500 Billion. One method of revenue generation under discussion is a VAT on medical devices and a surcharge of 2.5% on people making $250,000 or more. One option is to change the surcharge to 5% on those making a $500,000 or more. He pointed out the fact that many of those in either scenario are small business owners. He made the point that these options would have the effect of costing small businesses more than Fortune 100 companies. He repeated the point that state governments will have to come up with more money as well. A lot more money.

The final question I was able to stay for:

Q. What about fraud in existing government programs?

A. Fraud, along with waste and abuse, are unbelievably high in existing programs. Florida is particularly bad. While eliminating or reducing fraud, waste, and abuse won’t solve all of the cost problems, they are important and costly factors.

It was interesting to attend, and I wish I could have stayed longer. While there was a significant presence of those supporting a public option, most questioners (of those I had the chance to hear) appeared to want government to leave us alone.

If anyone else was there and had a different view, or was able to stay longer, please let me know.

The Conservative Outpost has provided a widget to help spread the word on saying “No” to Obamacare.

Barack Obama and liberals in Congress are moving quickly to pass health care “reform” that opens the door for a national, governement run health care system.

And Americans must speak out now and tell Congress “NO!” as loudly as possible.

There’s a “Get this widget” link that allows you to put it on your site. I’ve got mine.

One Thousand Five Hundred and Two. That’s the number of pages in the Bogus, er Baucus “Health Care Reform” Bill. Health Care Reform is in scar quotes because the bill is not about Health Care nor Reform. It is about power. Government power. If there were a truth in advertising law that applied to legislation the title might be the “Government Power Grab and Intrusion Into Health Decisions” bill. Whatever.

The PDF is here.

It has been suggested that the blogosphere look at the bill in small pieces. There is a site (that I don’t have time to track down right now. Someone in the comments?) that has suggested that you take the last three digits of your Social Security number and analyze that page. Of course that suggestion was made before page count came in at a grand and a half.

Here is my suggestion: For the first two numbers take your birthday and divide by two. Round down. For example, if you were born on the 1st the first two numbers would be 00. If, like me, you were born on the 26th the first two numbers would be 13. For the last two numbers take a look at my sitemeter counter. As I write this the last two numbers are 50. I will be reading page 1350. Get it? Good.

Now, leave a comment and let me know what page you will be examining. And please spread the word. We need (at least) 1502 of you to do the work the legacy media will either not do, or not do well. Are you up to it?

(h/t to Don Surber for the PDF link)

From a Democrat!

Van Helsing has the video (via CNSNews.com).

At a town hall meeting in Reston, Virginia, a patriot acceded to Dem Rep Jim Moran’s insulting demand that he present ID, then asked a question that has been on many minds: if the Dems have any serious interest in lowering healthcare costs, why don’t they do something about the looting bonanza by ambulance-chasing shyster lowlife like John Edwards, the astronomical cost of which is passed along to consumers?

As Rep Moron scuttled away in search of a safe crevice, Howard “Dr. Demento” Dean took the mic and amazingly told the truth. Via CNS News:

[T]he reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers … and that is the plain and simple truth.

Be sure to read and watch the whole thing.

(h/t Pomalom)