First, there is Senator Roland Burris — you remember him? “Appointed” to fill Obama’s vacant spot by criminal, former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich? — now taking credit for slipping wording into Harry Reid’s 2000+ page fascist medical plan for America in order to steer money to ACORN
Asked last night before the Senate voted why he was planning to support a bill without a public option, Burris said: “We have a great bill–the best we could get. And it also covers most of our concerns: competition, cost, and accountability.” But had anything specifically changed in the text of the bill that helped him change his mind? Burris told THE WEEKLY STANDARD: “It was the disparity provision that was put in, which we had something to do with, in terms of making sure that diabetes and the other diseases that are affecting minorities are really studied by HHS in all of these pilot programs.”The provision he cites, found on pages 240 through 248 of the manager’s amendment, requires that six different agencies each establish an “Office of Minority Health.” The agencies are the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.” [...]
According to a Senate legislative aide, the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now could qualify for grants under this provision. ACORN would also qualify for funding on page 150 of the underlying Reid bill, which says that “community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups” may receive grants to “conduct public education activities to raise awareness of the availability of qualified health plans.”
Now, I don’t know about you, but “raising awareness of the availability of qualified health plans” sounds an awful lot like marketing and advertising. And if I recall correctly, one of the main talking points from the socialist Single-payer advocates is that private insurance companies “waste money” on marketing and advertising.
So, it’s not “right” for private companies to advertise, but it’s ok to force taxpayers to funnel money to questionable agencies to do the same thing? Oh, that’s the ticket!
Second, related thug-tactics — Harry Reid’s bill slips in a provision forbidding future congresses from repealing parts of the bill.
No, really.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill–and it’s supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses.
Oh, you remember the Independent Medicare Advisory Board? The Board that will America’s version of Britain’s [Orwellian-named] NICE? The Board that makes sure to balance costs by enabling a higher deathrate from cervical, breast and prostate cancer?
Oh, just be sure not to call Reid’s Independent Medicare Advisory Board a “death panel” regardless of recommendations they may have such as limiting mammograms, pap smears, PSA tests or say, once you reach a certain age, just take Obama’s pain pill and die. That could be perceived by reasonable people as “fearmongering” or “lies” and an obstruction to civil discourse.
These are “good” men!
(h/t to Michelle Malkin and sdferr)
Comment by LBascom on 12/22 @ 10:44 am #
That can’t be Constitutional…
Comment by Pablo on 12/22 @ 10:44 am #
Forget “could”, it’s official.
PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels’
Q.E.F’n.D.
Comment by Joe on 12/22 @ 10:56 am #
We are so fucked. How are we going to rape and pillage Pandora in 2154 if our government keeps saddling us with these debts?
Comment by McGehee on 12/22 @ 10:57 am #
Last I heard, SCOTUS had ruled definitively that one Congress cannot bind another — as in, Congress can’t include language in a law prohibiting a future Congress from making changes to that law. IIRC, SCOTUS’s reasoning was along the lines of, “Hey, you know that Constitution thing, the one with the explicit amendment process? If you want to to stop future Congresses from doing stuff, that’s how you do it. Dingbats.” (paraphrased)
Then again, this would have been before SCOTUS had a Wise Latina™ on it, so all those prior rulings are probably out the window.
Comment by LBascom on 12/22 @ 11:00 am #
That’s not really anything new, I see billboards on highway 99 in the central valley advertising food stamps…in Spanish.
Ironically, they make me lose my lunch.
Comment by Pablo on 12/22 @ 11:01 am #
The minus twenty One.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/22 @ 11:16 am #
The Democratic Party with total control of the media and all three branches of the government has turned out to be substantially worse than I could have possibly imagined.
For them.
And us.
Comment by Joe on 12/22 @ 11:16 am #
I know the Supreme Court will stay out of Senate rules, but I am not sure they can create a extra constitutional requirement in an actual statute. Can they…
The world of Congress is mostly inhabited by laywers, and all the justices on the Supreme Court are attorneys. And as the Prophet Heinlien noted, unlike scientists and engineers who are bound by the laws of physics, anything is possible for a lawyer. They are not bound by anything.
So like Campaign Finance Reform, I am not holding my breath for SCOTUS to do the right thing. Best we may have to hope for is a pithy dissent from Scalia.
Comment by AJB on 12/22 @ 11:19 am #
The last time the Weekly Standard said something about the health care bill from an unnamed Senate aide it was not true. Just sayin’.
The current bill has no public option so the only plans that people are going to be made “aware” of are private ones. This is about informing people of the consumer choices they will have available to them under the new (admittedly shitty) health care system.
Comment by Squid on 12/22 @ 11:22 am #
AJB, please try to follow along: the point is that this appropriation is for marketing and advertising, which is something the insurers have been excoriated for.
I don’t give a rat’s ass what it is ACORN is marketing and advertising; I want to know what makes it OK when it’s them doing it, but wrong when Allina does it.
Comment by Darleen on 12/22 @ 11:24 am #
AJB
Nelson is a whore, so what makes you think he’d even admit to being strong armed? “Not true”? Debateable.
So why are taxpayers to be forced to fund ACORN to do what is the province of the “private” (but government ruled) companies? THEY can’t directly market their products to potential customers?
Puh-leeze.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/22 @ 11:24 am #
Per Gabriel Malor on twitter, the provision that requires a 2/3 majority to overrule the bill is legal and has been done many times before, including in the TARP bill.
I’m not saying I agree with it, as I think it’s a really BAD idea. However, I would rather we didn’t go down a road like this without knowing the history of such things.
Now, a rule that would require 2/3 to PASS any bill and a simple majority to REPEAL any bill would be awesome. Add in a sunset provision on all bills as well. Step one would be to repeal every piece of legislation passed since 1800 or so, up until the sunset date, which shouldn’t be longer than 10 years.
Yeah, it won’t happen, but wouldn’t that be sweet?
Comment by dicentra on 12/22 @ 11:25 am #
One benefit of Jeff’s return to blogdom is the emergence of all the old trolls. Like AJB.
The Utah state constitution contains a provision that says that the provision that forbids polygamy can never be repealed. It was a condition for statehood.
But then, that’s a constitutional clause, not a piece of legislation.
Harry Reid really is the anti-Christ.
Comment by Ella on 12/22 @ 11:25 am #
Three words:
The Ad Council.
Every time I hear one of those ads, I want to hit something.
Comment by dicentra on 12/22 @ 11:26 am #
Yeah, it won’t happen, but wouldn’t that be sweet?
They’d repeal all the good ones and keep all the bad ones. You know they would.
Comment by dicentra on 12/22 @ 11:27 am #
Of course, another reason to excoriate the insurance companies is that they deny payment for services and people die like flies.
Doesn’t matter that the gubmint-paid services deny payment more often that private insurers. Doesn’t matter at all.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/22 @ 11:27 am #
I would tend to disagree with any provision, constitutional or otherwise, that could not be repealed, even if it’s on something that I don’t care one whit about.
Comment by DarthRove on 12/22 @ 11:27 am #
cranky-d, a further piece of legislation mandating that lawyers cannot serve in the legislative branch would be appreciated, too.
Lawyers writing law tends to make my skin crawl, and ends up being bad for lots of people.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/22 @ 11:31 am #
Yeah, my system has a few flaws in it, because we have a truckload of legislation that already exists that was not passed with the 2/3 majority requirement. Hence the need for a removal of all legislation passed already.
While I’m dreaming, perhaps Marbury vs Madison should really be re-examined. The Constitution doesn’t say that the Supreme Court gets to decide what’s constitutional, all three branches where supposed to do that.
Ah, I’m just going far afield now.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/22 @ 11:32 am #
Darth, how about that if a lawyer does write the legislation, we have to have a civilian panel, chosen at random, review all legislation to make sure it makes sense to them? If an average citizen cannot understand it, it cannot be made law.
Comment by psycho... on 12/22 @ 11:36 am #
We have those where I live, too, and there are statistically zero Spanish-speaking people here. But there is a media/organizing apparatus to be paid off.
If you’re ever in the ‘hood — any ethnic ghetto — pick up its “community” newspaper. It’ll be full of huge, shitty, ethno-clip-art ads for demographically targeted government and pet-NGO programs.
The shtetl news ads are especially creepy. They tend to be green- and cosmopolitan-signaling “image” ads for the city or state, shilling nothing but the we’re-in-pleasant-control Mussolini-ness rich people like in a government. And the clip-art Jews have to look preposterously Jewy to signal “you people.”
“I need a picture of one of them beardy silly-hat Jews getting off a train, with his super-white-but-not-blonde wife and Asian daughter — and I mean ‘Asian daughter’ like they are on TV, not one of those weird-looking brown ones.”
Comment by Darleen on 12/22 @ 11:40 am #
cranky-d
I’d like a bill that would limit ALL future bills to 100 pages.
If you can’t say it succinctly and clearly in 100 pages, it should not be considered fit to pass.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/22 @ 11:41 am #
Just because I cannot stop myself… our system, as set up, worked pretty well as long as the people involved acted with good conscience and had faith in all the people, not just people like themselves. Especially, it worked when those in power didn’t even trust themselves with power. Maybe it was never that way, and I’m in fantasy-land, but I think in the very beginning it was like this.
What I do know is that our system rewards corruption. The freedoms we guarantee leave room for exploitation, and stopping the exploitation will also remove access for the regular folk. I don’t see a good way to stop it, except to have people who serve in public office be better people. That won’t happen.
Enough despair for now, I guess. Going Galt appears to be the only solution now.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/22 @ 11:47 am #
100 pages is a heck of a lot. One page would be even better. With one page, there would be no room for side deals and the like.
Still, 100 pages would be a vast improvement over monstrosities like the “health care” bill.
Comment by McGehee on 12/22 @ 11:50 am #
I’m still holding out for “Congress shall make no law.”
Comment by DarthRove on 12/22 @ 11:52 am #
Just in: Rep Parker Griffith (D-AL) switches to the other side of the aisle.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/22 @ 11:53 am #
Too bad he isn’t a Senator.
Comment by Joe on 12/22 @ 11:54 am #
Ann Coulter roasts a few healthcare chestnuts…the shells are splitting and they are steaming!
Comment by MarkJ on 12/22 @ 12:06 pm #
I think the Senate parliamentarian actually ruled that the Reid provision was merely a “procedural change.” If this is the case, then the IMAB portion CAN BE repealed with less than 2/3 supermajority since it isn’t a rule change. Fast Harry may have outfoxed himself on that one because the IMAB will be undoubtedly one of the first things the GOP goes after WHEN it gains a Senate majority next year.
The GOP battle cry come 2011 will be “Defund it. Then kill it. Then replace it.”
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/22 @ 12:32 pm #
“The GOP battle cry come 2011 will be “Defund it. Then kill it. Then replace it.”
The GOP doesn’t have a “battle cry” so much as they just seem to cry in battle.
Steyn is right. The GOP doesn’t have the balls. It’ll pass, and it’ll be here to stay. Then it’s just about the mission creep. Any future elections won’t offer a “Defund it. Kill it. Then replace it option.” It will simply be, “I can run this giant useless bureaucratic turd better than the other guy.”
But, in the near future, some Texan’s dear mother will be denied heart surgery or a hip replacement and be told take a pain pill and die quietly. That’s about when the shooting will start. At that point I guess you can pick up a musket and fight along side him, or mind the new Progressive Proletariat and do as your told.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/22 @ 12:42 pm #
I guess I’ll be moving to Texas.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/22 @ 12:54 pm #
We’d love to have you cranky.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/22 @ 12:59 pm #
Is there room for 4 more, Lamont? I think me and the missus would prefer the politics and the kids want a horse or two.
Comment by LBascom on 12/22 @ 1:04 pm #
cranky, you might not need to move. Just as the tea parties swept the nation, massacre parties may also come to a place near you.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/22 @ 1:26 pm #
It’s a big, big joint OI. Even if it wasn’t, we’d make room for your family. And we’ve got the horses covered (but keep in mind they are often more expensive than the kids:).
Wherever you are now, you’re probably gonna pay enough in Captain Awesome’s new taxes to feed & board a horse or two. Might as well move down here and have the animals to show for it.
Comment by J."Trashman" Peden on 12/22 @ 1:44 pm #
Jim Demint…pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses.
But you shan’t keep a Good Fascist down – or else! Or else a Good Man will say that a certain Neandertal threatens to eat babies and the brown people, Jim boy.
Meanwhile, I’m going to try to hold out right here in my cave, just like Osama and the Unabomber.
Comment by J."Trashman" Peden on 12/22 @ 2:33 pm #
Hold out, and correctly slam my alleged Cong. Representatives, you know, since we can refer to statements such as Demint’s as to the Fascism, Death Paneling, and so on, in the Bill, which we describe in our cherished emails to Senators.
Let them know you won’t let this Pig fly, and make them prove why you aren’t correct, which they won’t even try, imo. Keep on slammin’. Make Dem Fascists understand your intent. They’re really frightened of genuine individuals using “uncivil” language.
Comment by SDN on 12/22 @ 2:41 pm #
I thought “separate but equal” for Minorities was a Bad Thing.
Or maybe it’s “separate and more equal”.
Comment by Patterweako on 12/22 @ 4:55 pm #
If only we could, Lamont. Not now, but maybe someday soon. Plus, Texas is in the right direction…South! I’m cold right now. Very cold.
Comment by Osbtreperous Infidel on 12/22 @ 4:58 pm #
Oh well, 4:55 pm was mine. See, I’m too cold to even remember to change my sockpuppet.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/22 @ 4:59 pm #
Oh shit. Now, I misspell my regular handle. Going to bed now.