Kill the Bill, Take the Cannoli
If we have been a little quiet on the health care brouhaha lately, it’s only because we can’t quite keep up with a process that has more moving parts than a Rube Goldberg contraption.
Nancy Pelosi “has the votes” to pass health care, but mysteriously won’t bring it to a vote; Bart Stupak is open to negotiation on abortion language (he’s okay with the status quo), but no one will bargain with him honestly; the House and Senate have passed their own bills, but dare not try to “reconcile” them; the Senate parliamentarian has issued a preemptive decree against “deeming” a bill passed without a vote, yet the Vice President may be able to overrule the decision—make it go away-y-y-y!!!
No, really: make it go away.
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.
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…
That health insurance is a “right” is debatable. That our Constitution guarantees our rights is not—and that ought to be defended by those who took an oath to do so. Not run around like an inconvenient yet ineffective Maginot Line.
For once, I see my Congressman, Ed Markey, among those “deemed” worth lobbying. I encourage the rest of you to search for yours and to call them to let them know what you think.
They may not respect the Constitution and the Republic it defines—but some of them respect the ballot box, which is why the Democratic leadership is trying to get this done before the next recess, and the Long March to the district offices back home.
Carol said,
March 13, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
I must disagree in the strongest terms possible that health insurance is a “right” is debatable. Unless you think you have a right to another’s labor, to make him your slave, you cannot have a right to health care. As long as health care is provided by persons, no one can ever, ever, ever have a right to it, any more than one can have a right to housing, or any other thing provided by another person. To claim a right to the labor of another person is to advocate slavery, pure and simple.
Bloodthirsty Liberal said,
March 13, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
You and I are on the same team, Carol, which is why I wrote health “insurance” instead of health “care”. As you say, you cannot force someone to provide care—anyway, they do so already. No one is denied treatment in the ER, and there are clinics in many hospitals that provide routine care for the poor. But some argue, however inanely, that health insurance is a right. Everybody has a right, they claim, to health care paid for by someone else. So, it is not a doctor’s labor that is being demanded without compensation. It is yours and mine to pay for the program.
On top of the food we provide via food stamps and AFDC (or its successor programs); the free education we pay for (whether we have children or not, whether we pay tens of thousands extra per year for private school or not), which, some now argue, should extend through college; the subsidized housing we pay for (hello, Aunt Zeituni!), etc.
I can’t tell you how many young people I’ve heard call up radio shows and say they can’t afford to have children because they need two salaries, and still don’t feel they have the money. Yet they don’t qualify for assistance, or wouldn’t take it if they did. Clearly, other people have no such qualms.
How such mandated subsidies are deemed fair and limitless makes no sense to me, but some feel otherwise. Hence, a debate.
John3 said,
March 15, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
Carol, your definition of what constitutes a right is really a winner. I don’t know if you would agree with me but I think all rights are God or Creator-given–whether you believe in one or not (somebody created everybody). Anything that crosses paths with another human being’s God-given right is not a right, in fact, as you said, it is a form of slavery, a tyrannical event. Perfect example is abortion: the woman’s “right” to abortion crosses the baby’s ability to live (the right to life). Obamacare will fund abortions and it also intrudes on people’s right to live by their conscience (e.g., religious beliefs) or their right not to have insurance. I firmly believe that Obamacare is a weapon of mass destruction of all of our God-given rights, both acutely (abortion) and insidiously over time (social change to make more Americans dependent on their government, e.g., a form of enslavement to the whims and ideas of the ruling party). Because the Democratic left is in power, they are doing this to produce a permanent (slave) voter base. I would not be surprised if parents and grandparents will be deemed unfit to teach their children and grandchildren what American freedom really was like. If this bill is passed, the healthcare system will quickly try and “die off” all of us oldies–thus creating this generational amnesia and our grandchildren (if they are allowed to live), will wake up to this New America of newly found freedoms courtesy of Madame Pelosi. The next few days folks, are crucial.