Democrats: The Party Of “NO!” (Updated X3)
H/T Gold-Plated Witch On Wheels
Everyone’s heard of HB 3400, right? No? That’s the Republican Health Care bill. But HB 3200 weighed in at 1502 pages. And everyone knows about that one. At least everyone in the blogosphere does.
Just recently, the new Health Care bill was trotted out hauled out on a CSX freight train. At 1990 pages, it is one heavy bill.
Remember this?
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
James Madison
If you’re not interested in the opinion of the Father of the Constitution, perhaps you’re interested in other numbers. Like the number of pages of other, more important documents.
In case you have been under a rock or you have not heard the news the MSM has not provided, the Republicans have offered a health care reform plan that hits TORT reform, and hits it relatively hard. And the 1990-page Pelosi plan discusses TORT reform. The Pelosi plan says “NO!”
Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
(emphasis Sharon)
Under the Democrat/Pelosi plan, any state that does any sort of meaningful TORT reform will be punished, and severely. And those on the left say Republicans are the ones who refuse to negotiate? Republicans are the ones who don’t want any meaningful cost-saving reforms? The Democrat/Pelosi plan is nothing but a Government power-grab and hand-outs to the power brokers already in the Democrat camp. There is nothing there for the average Joe. As the song says, it’s all taking and no giving with the Democrats.
Tell me again, liberals. When someone says “First we’re going to kill you and your immediate family. Next, we’re going to poison your extended family. And third, we’re going to make destitute all your and their friends.” Why should I negotiate with that? I mean, seriously, are you all in First Grade, where you think you can make up all the rules and complain when others “don’t wanna play”?
As for the “Party of NO” is concerned, which party changes locks so the other party can’t do things? Which party refuses to allow full and open debate of the other party’s bills? Which party refuses to allow the other party’s bills on the floor? Which party turned off the lights and the mics when the other party was still around to speak? Which party ran off when the other party was set to discuss real issues of alleged criminal activity in an oversight committee?
Which party is the “Party of NO”?
UPDATE: From Caffeinated Thoughts comes this little piece of information:
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), referred specifically to language on page 110 of the new bill (H.R. 3962) which explicitly authorizes the “public health insurance option” to pay for all elective abortions.
The article starts out with BHO promising such isn’t the case. Hrmmmm….
UPDATE 2:
More information on the “NO!” business of the power brokers. No amendments to the 1990-page bill in the House.
Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) has proposed an amendment that would prohibit the federal government plan from paying for abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But Speaker Pelosi intends to try to force the House to pass the 1990-page bill under a “closed rule” (a procedure that allows no amendments to be considered), reportedly because she fears that the House would adopt the Stupak Amendment if a vote were allowed.
(emphasis mine)
Pelosi won’t even let less liberal Democrats amend her monstrosity. Go figure.
UPDATE 3:
(H/T daleyrocks)
[T]he House bill prohibits insurance companies from charging premiums on any rational basis. Section 213, titled “Insurance Rating Rules,” provides:
The premium rate charged for a qualified health benefits plan that is health insurance coverage may not vary except as follows:
(1) LIMITED AGE VARIATION PERMITTED.–By age (within such age categories as the Commissioner shall specify) so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1.
So young people–who, remember, will now be forced to buy health insurance–will subsidize older people.
(2) BY AREA.–By premium rating area (as permitted by State insurance regulators or, in the case of Exchange-participating health benefits plans, as specified by the Commissioner in consultation with such regulators).
(3) BY FAMILY ENROLLMENT.–By family enrollment (such as variations within categories and compositions of families) so long as the ratio of the premium for family enrollment (or enrollments) to the premium for individual enrollment is uniform, as specified under State law and consistent with rules of the Commissioner.
That’s it. A lower premium for non-smokers or the non-obese? Forget about it. It’s illegal.
Under the House bill, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that health insurance companies are no longer in the insurance business.
So, under the Pelosi/Democrat plan, insurance companies will have to ask permission from some bureaucrat, called “the Commissioner (Der Kommissar)” to set rates or to make new insurance plans. And “the Commissioner” will decide what parameters for everything the insurance companies can use.
That is one great big, fat “NO!” to free-market and to rational thinking.
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor
Perry:
This post is such a hodge-podge of undocumented charges and made up stuff that it is hardly worth picking apart, so I won’t, except to say that Repubs did totally exclude the Dems that way back when they had power during Bush-43. So clearly, we have here the pot, Sharon, calling the kettle black!
However, the tort reform issue is an important one, with which I disagree on the position taken against it in the Pelosi/House bill (which, by the way, has not yet had a floor vote, so is still subject to revision). Estimates I’ve seen is that tort reform could represent savings of up to $60 billion per year — that’s not chickenfeed!
After the floor vote, if passed, this bill will eventually have to be reconciled with whatever Senate bill passes, so there is a further opportunity for revision at that time as well. Let us not ‘jump the gun’ on this issue.
Regarding HB 3400, never heard of it. Why is not the House Repub leadership, Boehner and Cantor, pushing their bill in public? They are responsible for making HB 3400 known, and have failed to do so, making me conclude that it is a political feint, you know, window dressing, that is, lacking in substance that would impact the debate, and the Repubs know it.
31 October 2009, 7:51 amJohn Hitchcock:
Give me a break, Perry. YOU have heard of HB 3400. Yorkshire told you about it previously. And your “undocumented charges and made up stuff” bit is getting old. You keep using that bit. And you keep getting citations that prove you wrong. And you keep ignoring the citations. And you keep refusing to make any retractions. Willfully blind and willfully deaf, you are.
And under Bush-43, Democrats were still bringing amendments to the floor to be voted on. Under Pelosi, not so much. The Republican Senate was never filibuster-proof so Republicans had to work with the Democrats to get anything passed. And, no, the Republican House never changed locks on doors to keep Democrats locked out. And, yes, Pelosi had the lights and mics turned off in chambers while Republicans stayed and talked.
31 October 2009, 10:02 amPerry:
John Hitchcockamania: Citations please!
31 October 2009, 10:18 amJohn Hitchcock:
Perry, I’m sure if you go back through the archives on this site alone, you will see the information. And you will see where you were present, arguing. But, judging by your past performance, you will not do that. You’re not interested in citations. You’re only interested in “Helen Keller” partisanship.
31 October 2009, 10:31 amropelight:
Democrat Plan to Destroy Medicare and Tax Everything Else
Democrats have labored and brought forth a plan to destroy Medicare, protect lawyers, kill old people, and tax the blue thunder out of anyone left alive.
It would have been named after Osama Bin Ladin, except the Democrats didn’t want their “Final Solution” to be associated with such an amateurish attempt to destroy the USA. Obama wants to get it right this time.
Democrats are proud of themselves today, but like Germans after Auschwitz was liberated, later you won’t be able to find anyone who will admit to having known what was really going on after the Democrat Death Panels get their trains running on time.
Look out Jews, you’re gonna get hit first. Then the handicapped, the infirm, and the old. Now, guess who’s next on Obama’s enemies list.
31 October 2009, 12:03 pmPerry:
Ropelight: Complete and utter nonsense!
31 October 2009, 12:49 pmYorkshire:
Perry, how much support and debate on HB3400 from the Dems??
31 October 2009, 2:29 pmropelight:
Perry,
Pigs squeal when they get hit. That’s on you pal. Thanks for the confirmation.
31 October 2009, 3:18 pmPerry:
John Hithcockamania
You social wingnuts seem to conveniently forget that abortion is a legal medical procedure, so to prohibit it from being covered by insurance, you and yours insist on taking that legal right away from a woman. That, my friend, is illegal.
Now you know well by now that I am adamantly against abortion myself, but the law says that the woman has a right to choose, within certain specified limits. When will you choose to honor the rule of law, John? Or is the law to be honored only when you so choose? You are a hypocrite, John!
31 October 2009, 5:46 pmPerry:
Ropelight:
I stand by my “squeal”, thank you very much!
31 October 2009, 5:48 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Perry, when you attempt to use logic, you get it all messed up. But you sure feel free to shove your beliefs down other people’s throats while you’re stealing money out of their wallets. But, oh, feel free to throw that “hypocrite” tag around since you can’t make heads or tails of deductive reasoning.
And I’m still waiting for your retractions of all those “you made that up” accusations when I repeatedly gave the proof you demanded. Not that I’m holding my breath since you lack the integrity as shown time and time again.
But thanks for stopping by, clown.
31 October 2009, 7:10 pmmicbro:
The approaching poetic justice will be worth the wait. It’s clear that conservative ideas have been thrown out quickly, or worse, not considered at all. This administration will eventually be dragged to justice by it’s own arrogance, and the resulting effects of corrupt, self serving legislation. Time will bear it out precisely.
31 October 2009, 8:48 pmSharon:
You social wingnuts seem to conveniently forget that abortion is a legal medical procedure, so to prohibit it from being covered by insurance, you and yours insist on taking that legal right away from a woman.
You have a right to an abortion. You don’t have a right to taxpayers paying for your abortion. And, in fact, you don’t have a right to have insurance pay for your abortion. Dude.
31 October 2009, 11:35 pmJohn Hitchcock:
By the by, Perry, link to your previous statements that you are adamantly against abortion. Because you just made that up as a form of cover and concealment in your sneak-attack. The problem is, you used palm fronds in your ghillie suit while in up-state NY.
1 November 2009, 12:07 amblubonnet:
1 November 2009, 12:29 am
blubonnet:
I need to better understand computers, I guess. I tried to post an image, to no avail, which explains the above “post”.
1 November 2009, 12:31 amPerry:
Sharon pontificates: “You have a right to an abortion. You don’t have a right to taxpayers paying for your abortion. And, in fact, you don’t have a right to have insurance pay for your abortion. Dude.”
And on what basis did you use for this declaration, Sharon.
My point was that abortion is a legal medical procedure, so who do you think you are to stipulate that health insurance not cover it?
As the House Bill stands at the moment, there is no stipulation in it for coverage of abortions. So the choice is left to the insurers whether or not to cover it, just like the choice is left to doctors whether or not to perform one. You social conservatives do everything you can to prohibit choice. Where is your love for freedom then?
And again, I am adamantly against abortion, and have been for many years; that said, I do not feel as though I have the right to take choice away from a woman. Given an opportunity, I would counsel any woman to carry to full term, then consider adoption if she cannot care for and love her baby.
1 November 2009, 12:43 amJohn Hitchcock:
Perry blindly said:
While my above article already clearly says:
Perry declares a medical procedure is the exact same thing as health care:
(Notice he has gone on his well-known authoritarian kick?)
I wonder, is a Pelosi-gets-a-goatee facelift a medical procedure? Is that health care? Earth to Perry, not all medical procedures qualify as health care.
Perry makes further disingenuous remarks:
But the liberal, pro-abort crowd want to strip credentials away from anyone who chooses not to accede to a woman’s wish for an abortion or an abortion pill (RU286).
Perry, ever the blind, deaf authoritarian, wants to shove bovine byproduct down our throats. But Perry, ever the side-stepper, never wants to give proof of anything. Prove to me, Perry, that you have been all this anti-abortion you claim you have been. Give me historical evidence of your words claiming abortion is wrong. Or live in your (further) lies.
1 November 2009, 1:04 amSharon:
And on what basis did you use for this declaration, Sharon.
I assume you’ve heard of the Hyde Amendment, Perry.
Translation: you can’t use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.
The bills being considered by Democrats allow the use of taxpayer funding to pay insurers to provide abortion coverage. Again, you have a right to have an abortion. You don’t have a right to force taxpayers to pay for it.
As the House Bill stands at the moment, there is no stipulation in it for coverage of abortions. So the choice is left to the insurers whether or not to cover it, just like the choice is left to doctors whether or not to perform one. You social conservatives do everything you can to prohibit choice. Where is your love for freedom then?
This isn’t prohibiting anyone’s choice as long as the person pays for the abortion coverage themselves. Why is is liberals hate the choice of taxpayers not to pay for abortion? Where is your love of freedom then?
1 November 2009, 6:43 pm