December 22, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.
“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.”
Americans who fail to buy health insurance, according to the Democrats’ bill, would be subject to financial penalties. The senators believe the bill is unconstitutional because the insurance mandate is not authorized by any of the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government. The individual mandate also likely violates the “takings” clause of the 5th Amendment.
The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill requires Americans to buy health insurance “whether or not they ever visit a doctor, get a prescription or have an operation.” If an American chooses not to buy health insurance coverage, they will face rapidly increasing taxes that will rise to $750 or 2% of their taxable income, whichever is greater.
The Congressional Budget Office once stated “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
A legal study by scholars at the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation concluded: “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.”
Just some of the payoffs and kickbacks:
Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) “Louisiana Purchase.” CBS News reports: “It started with Mary Landrieu. When reports surfaced she had been swayed with a $100 million Medicaid deal just for Louisiana, she bragged it was actually $300 million. The deal was so notorious, Republicans gave it a name. ‘We have new words in our lexicon, the Louisiana Purchase,’ Sen. John McCain said.”
Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) $100 Million “Cornhusker Kickback.” The Hill reports: “Nebraska will receive $100 million in assistance for its Medicaid program under provisions in the Senate’s healthcare bill negotiated by Sen. Ben Nelson (D).”
Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) & Carl Levin’s (D-MI) Sweetheart Deal for Nebraska/Michigan Insurance Companies. Politico reports: “In addition to the Medicaid carve out, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) negotiated an exemption from the insurance tax for non-profit insurers based in his state. The language was written in a way that only Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, as well as Blue Cross Blue Shield nonprofit plans in Nebraska and Michigan, would qualify, according to a Democratic Senate aide.”
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Takes Credit for $100 Million Hospital Earmark. The Associated Press reports: “A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night.”
Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) Inserts Provision for ACORN Funding. The Weekly Standard reports: “Senator Roland Burris is claiming credit for a provision in Harry Reid’s ‘manager’s amendment,’ unveiled Saturday morning, that could funnel money to ACORN through the health care bill.”
Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) Secures $600 Million Medicaid Kickback. The Associated Press reports: “Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., negotiated $600 million in additional Medicaid benefits for his state over 10 years. He said Vermont is due the additional benefits because the state already has acted to expand Medicaid eligibility to the levels now contemplated by the federal government. Vermont would be unfairly penalized if other states are now being helped with that expansion, he said.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) Scores $10 Billion for Community Health Centers. The Associated Press reports: “Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who was angered after a new government-run health plan was dropped from the legislation to win over moderates like Nelson and Landrieu, held out on backing the bill until Reid, D-Nev., agreed to a $10 billion increase in support for community health centers.”
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) Negotiates Special Deal for Florida Medicare Advantage Recipients. The Associated Press reports: “Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., pushed a provision he said will let about 800,000 Florida seniors enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans keep their extra benefits. It also helps seniors in a handful of other states. Elsewhere, Medicare Advantage patients risk losing benefits because the private plans are a major target of planned cuts to Medicare.”
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Scores Extra Medicare Benefits for Montana Residents. The Associated Press reports: “Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee and a key architect of the legislation, put in a provision to help the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., many of whom have asbestos-related illnesses from a now-defunct mineral mine. Under Baucus’ provision, which never mentions Libby by name, sickened residents could sign up for Medicare benefits.”
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) Wins More Medicare Funding for Iowa Hospitals. The Wall Street Journal reports: “One change won by Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) would increase Medicare payments to medium-size hospitals, including eight in his state. Mr. Harkin said such ‘tweener’ hospitals are short-changed by the current system.”
Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) & Kent Conrad (D-ND) Win Higher Medicare Payments for Rural Hospitals . The Washington Post reports: “The Senate health-care bill has been full of goodies handed out to buy/earn the vote of various senators. … Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad’s higher Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in the ‘frontier counties’ of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.”
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
If they beat us in the Senate, we will fight them in conference. If they beat us in conference, we will fight them in the House. If they beat us in the House over healthcare, we will fight them over cap and trade. We will fight them over immigration and amnesty. We will fight them over the deficit. We will fight them over the debt. And we will fight them in 2010. We will fight them in the House. We will fight them for Senate seats in Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and Arkansas. We will fight them in Colorado and North Dakota and California and Washington State. We will fight them in Illinois and in New Jersey. We will never, never, never, never give up! Our country is at stake!
All our defeats do is to teach us the futility of appealing to moderate Democrats and the necessity — the dire necessity — of replacing them with committed Republicans. There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat in Congress. There are simply those whose votes the leadership does not need in order to promote its socialist agenda.
We will not place our faith in the Nelsons or the Lincolns or the Liebermans or the Landrieus of the Senate. Nor in the Blue Dogs of the House. All we do when we depend on them is to permit them to raise their price and up the ante for their vote. We will place our faith only in the Republicans who oppose them and who will bring the collective insanity which has gripped Washington to an end.
But we will continue to fight each battle in Congress because it is only by blunting Obama’s momentum and by demonstrating to the voters of America how their Democratic members of Congress are only automatic votes for socialism that we have a chance to triumph in 2010. And triumph we will. We can only hope that there is still a country to take back!
Stay with us! Help us! Fight with us!
The Weekly Standard Blog – Posted by John McCormack
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:
there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to this subsection.”
and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”
this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.
i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.
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.
Paging Sarah Palin: the death panel is unkillable.
Update: A friend suggests that Congress could kill IMAB by refusing to fund it. So much for zombie death panels, I guess, for now. Also, the Senate could change the rules to rule repealing or amending IMAB in order. But that would take a 2/3 majority. The Democrats aren’t playing by the rules; they may be violating the Constitution.
Redstate – Posted by Erick Erickson
There are always, when some of us on the right blow up an issue like Harry Reid’s rules changes, some people who say we’re overreacting.
I have to say I think they miss the point.
First, I do agree with Gabriel Malor that “a quick glance at the Library of Congress website and Google shows that language similar to that used here to except these provisions from the Standing Rules has been used dozens of times in the past thirty years in both the Senate and the House, including in the 109th Congress when Republicans controlled both chambers.”
Second, I do agree the GOP has done thing, including with Medicare Part D.
But, in most all of the cases, though not all including Medicare Part D, the Senate first went through a procedural vote requiring a two-thirds vote in recognition that there would be a change of Senate Rules.
In several of the cases, including Medicare Part D, when that two-thirds vote did not first happen, the 51 person vote went forward without an objection being raised by the Democrats on that point.
Here is where I think the people saying we’re overreacting are totally missing the point.
In the case at hand, an objection was raised and very clearly the rules were being changed. The Senate President, however, ruled that the rules were not being changed, just procedure, despite the clear wording of the change being a rules change.
This is, in fact, done in contravention to Senate procedure.
But here is what everyone saying this is no big deal is missing: to my knowledge and the knowledge of those who I have consulted with on this issue, there has never been any legislation passed by the Congress with a prohibition on future Senates considering changes to previously enacted laws or regulations.
We can argue over whether or not this would be upheld, but given the refusal of the Senate GOP Leadership to fight now, we can wonder if they would fight on this in the future.
Likewise, what exactly is Harry Reid trying to prevent future Senates from repealing? Bureaucratic regulations enacted by the Death Panels. So, for example, though the Death Panels are prohibited by statute from passing “rationing” regulations, under the definitions, the panels can pass regulations setting priorities for treatment. So, they can say a 40 year old must get treatment for the same condition suffered by a 70 year old before the 70 year old can get treatment, thereby letting the 70 year old whither and die waiting for their turn.
And Harry Reid intends for the Senate, in perpetuity, to be prohibited from every changing that regulation without a super-majority of the Senate agreeing to ignore that prohibition.
Lastly, why in God’s name would the Senate Majority Leader want to make the Death Panel regulations the only thing in the Obamacare legislation that is not subject to amendment, repeal, or change by the United States Senate?!
Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:
“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”
In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?
The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:
“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”
Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.
This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.
This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)
The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?
This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.
- Sarah Palin
Fox News – Trish Turner
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he’s considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill. But he said other senators are looking for special treatment in light of his success.
Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, after securing a sweetheart deal for his state as part of the health insurance reform bill, said Tuesday that three other senators have told him they want to bargain for the same kind of special treatment.
“Three senators came up to me just now on the (Senate) floor, and said, ‘Now we understand what you did. We’ll be seeking this funding too’,” Nelson said.
But the Democratic senator, who has faced a heap of criticism for appearing to trade his vote on health care for millions in federal Medicaid money, said he’s considering asking that the Nebraska deal be stripped from the bill.
Though he defended the exemption as a “fair deal,” he said he never asked for the full federal funding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended up granting his state. Nelson said he instead asked that states be allowed to refuse an expansion of Medicaid.
“This is the way Senate leadership chose to handle it. I never asked for 100 percent funding,” he said.
Nelson has maintained that the only reason he even brought up Medicaid was that Nebraska Republican Gov. Dave Heineman put him up to it.
After Nelson sent a letter to the governor offering to kill the Medicaid deal, Heineman acknowledged that he and other governors had “expressed concern” about the state burden for Medicaid patients. But he rejected any suggestion from Nelson that he asked for the kind of deal Reid struck.
“Under no circumstances did I have anything to do with Senator Nelson’s compromise,” the governor said in a written statement. “The responsibility for this special deal lies solely on the shoulders of Senator Ben Nelson.”
He urged Nelson to reconsider his support for the overall health care bill and, in response to the Sunday letter, said his state expects “a fair deal, not a special deal.”
“Governors all across America are troubled by this unfunded Medicaid mandate. If the U.S. Senate plans to address the unfunded mandates issue, all states must receive fair and equal treatment,” he wrote.
Nelson said Tuesday he wants to talk to the governor before making a decision on the Medicaid provision.
Nelson would not name the three senators he said told him they’re thinking of seeking the same kind of federal aid. He said he expected them to seek the money outside the health care reform process, and he defended their efforts.
“Why should states be forced to pay for a (federal) unfunded mandate?” he said.
Republican senators agree and have blasted Nelson for the apparent payoff.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has asked his state’s attorney general to give the deal a legal review, and said it’s not fair to other states that are still going to have to pick up part of the Medicaid tab.
“I think that’s just incredibly inappropriate. … That is the worst in politics,” he told Fox News on Tuesday. “I don’t believe most senators believe this is OK. … I think it stinks. I think it’s sleazy.”
Politico – By PATRICK O’CONNOR
Congressional Democrats are poised to wrap up work on their health care bill in early 2010, but the battle over public opinion will persist for years.
The most recent health care polling paints a bleak picture for Democrats as they prepare for a historic vote in the Senate later this week. The national numbers show a growing majority of likely voters oppose their push to expand coverage to millions of uninsured Americans. The numbers are even worse in some critical battlegrounds.
But with support slipping in places like Little Rock, Ark., and Las Vegas, it’s worth asking: Do these people even know what’s in the bill
The short answer is no. And Democrats hope changing the national conversation from general rhetoric to specific provisions will brighten the national mood.
As the bill changed over time, most Americans’ opinions were shaped less by hard information about actual provisions than by themes in the debate — what role the government should have in the health care industry and whether the legislation would add more red ink to the federal balance sheet.
“What you have is a general impression about whether people or people close to them think things will be better with passage of this bill,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis with Harvard’s School of Public Health. “The take-away from the debate to this point is that this bill is not going to help people.”
In fact, more than half of the respondents to most health care polls say they don’t know enough about the bill to have a hard opinion — if they’re given that option, Democratic pollster John Anzalone said in an e-mail.
“What they hear is some notions — some accurate, some distorted — about what Democrats are trying to do,” said Charles Franklin, a polling expert at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
As the poll numbers slip, Democrats are banking on the fact that they can sell the bill now that lawmakers can point to specific policies embedded in the legislation.
“If you look at the morning polls, there are some polls that show, just as a result of our passing this, the support of this bill is up about 10 percent just overnight,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday.
“When people see what is in this bill and when people see what it does, they will come around,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a key negotiator on the bill who helmed the Democrats’ campaign committee for two cycles. “The reason people are negative is not the substance of the bill but the fears that the opponents have laid out. When those fears don’t materialize, and people see the good in the bill, the numbers are going to go up.”
Perhaps, but Reid, Schumer and their colleagues still face a daunting task. Just look at the numbers: According to the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 47 percent of voters oppose the party’s health care plan, compared with 32 percent who support it. The Pew Research Center puts the spread at 35 percent for, 48 percent against. And the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed a precipitous drop in support for the overhaul in just the past month.
In Arkansas, where Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a tough reelection fight, voters overwhelmingly oppose the party’s health care push, 65 percent to 32 percent, according to Rasmussen. The same holds true in Louisiana, where Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu gave President Barack Obama critical support for the bill. Landrieu has a few years before she runs for reelection, but the sagging polls made it harder for Obama and Reid to earn her support. And if the polls are right, voters in Nevada don’t exactly appreciate Reid’s efforts to push the president’s top legislative priority across the finish line. His 39 percent approval rating mirrors the level of support for the health care bill back home, according to another Rasmussen poll conducted this week.
Correction Regarding the Longer-Term Effects of the Manager’s Amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
December 20, 2009
Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Leader:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has discovered an error in the cost estimate released on December 19, 2009, related to the longer-term effects on direct spending of the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Senate Amendment 2786 in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3590 (as printed in the Congressional Record on November 19, 2009). Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019.
The legislation would establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board, which would be required, under certain circumstances, to recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit the rate of growth in that program’s spending. Those recommendations would go into effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action.
In its original estimate, CBO wrote that: “Such recommendations would be required if the Chief Actuary for the Medicare program projected that the program’s spending per beneficiary would grow more rapidly than a measure of inflation (the average of the growth rates of the consumer price index for medical services and the overall index for all urban consumers).” That statement is correct for fiscal years 2015 through 2019.
After 2019, however, the threshold for Medicare spending growth that would trigger recommendations for spending reductions would be higher—specifically, the rate of increase in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita plus 1 percentage point.
With this corrected reading, savings from changes to the Medicare program (along with other changes to direct spending that are not associated directly with expanded insurance coverage) would increase at a rate that is between 10 percent and 15 percent per year during the 2020–2029 period, compared with a growth rate of nearly 15 percent reported in the initial estimate. The long-run budgetary effects of the other broad categories of the legislation are unchanged from the initial estimate.
All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.
In comparison, the extrapolations in the initial estimate implied a reduction in deficits in the 2020–2029 period that would be in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The imprecision of these calculations reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to them, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates. The expected reduction in deficits would represent a small share of the total deficits that would be likely to arise in that decade under current policies.
Relative to the legislation as originally proposed, the expected reduction in deficits during the 2020–2029 period remains somewhat larger for the legislation incorporating the manager’s amendment. It also remains that case that most of that difference arises because the manager’s amendment would lower the threshold for Medicare spending growth that would trigger recommendations for spending reductions by the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Such recommendations would be required, in the legislation as originally proposed, if projected growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary exceeded the rate of increase in national health expenditures per capita—and in the legislation incorporating the manager’s amendment, if it exceeded the rate of increase in GDP plus 1 percentage point.
Based on this extrapolation, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit).
Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 2 percent during the next two decades—well below the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.
I apologize for any confusion created by this error. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Douglas W. Elmendorf
Director – CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
CBO: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Incorporating the Manager’s Amendment Dec 19, 2009 (PDF)(38 PAGES)
Related Previous Posts:
Summary of House GOP Health Care Reform Bill (PDF)
Text of House GOP Health Care Reform Bill (PDF)
New: Ten Reasons to Support the GOP Health Care Reform Bill (PDF)
Side-by-Side Policy Comparison of Pelosi Health Care Bill & GOP Alternative (PDF)
GOP Fact Sheets
The Dallas Morning News: In health care debate, Hutchison’s bark comes with little bite
TownHall (Michelle Malkin): Beltway Christmas: Cash for Corruptocrats
The Atlantic: The Process of Passing Health Care
Right Side News: Lawmakers File “Freedom of Healthcare Choice Act”
Gateway Pundit: Dems Refuse GOP Efforts to Strip Bribes From Health Care Bill
Post Contents: I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One on TV Video —Ensign, DeMint to Force Vote on Health Care Bill Unconstitutionality — Health care passed on CHRISTMAS EVE ?! Obama/satan claus will give us all a present of disaster! Video — Payoffs And Kickbacks List — Dooley Does Dylan Music Video —WINSTON CHURCHILL: “NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP” — Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill — Universal Healthcare (Runaround Sue Parody ObamaCare) Music Video —Making the Death Panels Permanent — DeMint Challenges Democrats on Rules Changes in Reid Health Bill Video — Sarah Palin: Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel — Grandma Got Run Over By Obama – Health Care Parody Music Video —Nelson Says More Senators Seeking Special Treatment in Light of Nebraska Deal — Obama – No Stupid Fool Music Video — Next hurdle: Persuade public
Updated Related Links – end