Are key portions of Obamacare going to be unrepealable?
It is worthwhile to listen to Senator Jim DeMint discuss one critical aspect of the Senate Obamacare bill:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) has thumbed through Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment and discovered some “particularly troubling” rule-change provisions, especially with regards to the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which he finds could be unrepealable
John McCormack:
According to page 1001 of the Reid bill, the purpose of the Independent Medical Advisory Board is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” For any fearmongers out there tempted to call an unelected body that recommends Medicare cuts a “Death Panel,” let me be clear. According to page 1004, IMAB proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care”—you know, just like the bill says there’s no funding for abortion.
William Kristol:
Why did the authors of the legislation want to specially protect the Independent Medicare Advisory Board by making it difficult for future Congresses to legislate in that area? Because the heart of the bill is the attempt to get control of our health care permanently in the hands of federal bureaucrats, who would allegedly know better than doctors and patients what’s good for them, and who would cut access to care and the quality of care…
A GOP Senate staffer writes:
The bill changes some Senate rules to say we can’t vote in a future Congress to repeal the IMAB (death panels)….
It also shows that this provision in particular is very important to Dems. They chose this section out of all others to give the highest possible protection against change or repeal showing how insatiable their desire is to allow Washington bureaucrats to control our lives.
And for these sorts of issues, it is critically important to force a vote on Christmas Eve before the word can get out about the true nature of the bill.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are not articulating a compelling strategic alternative to draw American citizens into their realm.
It’s too bad we can’t send everyone home from Washington, D.C. until the 2010 elections.
“It’s too bad we can’t send everyone home from Washington, D.C. until the 2010 elections” sounds like the spoiled little kid who, not being selected captain, says, “I’m taking my ball and going home!”
OldTimeLefty
Don,
I watched that video at lunchtime and went back to work with the conclusion that we’re now living in a banana republic… watching a Democrat senator explain that legislation explicitly stating that it intended to change a rule wasn’t actually a “rule change” but a “procedural instruction” or some such.
In keeping with your suggestion, the Republicans should start making noises about having a platform to review and perhaps repeal every law enacted from now until the next election.
Justin an excellent idea!! Republicans should run a national campaign starting in 2010 in which they vow to repeal the deeds of the evil-doers once they regain control of the Congress. That will be a very attractive platform. I know rank and file Democrats who are scared to death over this government takeover.
Don writes, ..”And for these sorts of issues, it is critically important to force a vote on Christmas Eve before the word can get out about the true nature of the bill.”
Don, these are the actions of evil politicians. And I do mean evil in every sense of the word. The job of overhauling our health care system, a measure that will impact every citizen in this country as well as our teetering economy, is one that should be in the hands of serious, intelligent and honest men and women. It’s a task that should take time and due diligence to get it right because getting it wrong will have catastrophic consequences on this economy and on the health care delivery system in this country.
It is appalling that the evil-doers see health care reform as a purely political issue and treat it as such.
Christmas Eve votes to soften the PR blow from a distracted public??
Appalling!! And evil!!
“Christmas Eve votes to soften the PR blow from a distracted public??”
Additionally, they are racing the dissemination of the details of the bill and the corresponding public opposition to the bill which grows as the details are exposed. (Imagine having to characterize what should be a well-informed debate about pending legislation as “exposing the details”.)