The Democrat Health-Care Rationing Scheme Legislation As A Vote Winner

Can the Democrats really believe that their Health-Care Rationing Scheme will be good for them in the Midterms and beyond?

In a word, Yes.

See: EXCLUSIVE: Biden Says White House Getting Earful from Nervous Lawmakers Over Health Care

Biden said once these provisions take effect and the American people feel the impact, lawmakers who vote "yes" will reap the benefits.

"They're going to see right off the bat the horrible [things] aren't real and there are some very good things that become apparent immediately," Biden said. "Once the American public realizes that ... [legislators are] going to be rewarded."

Can the Democrats really believe that?

Yes they can.

We are talking about true-believers.

Many on the left believe that the rightly guided (god) state can make for a paradise on earth. To us, that is a madness, but to them it is in the realm of the possible.

In fact, our oppositions to their efforts to bring about thier new and inherently benevolent god-state is seen by them as proof our meanness and selfishness.

Sure, they understand that some of the things that they will do will make some people unhappy for a time, but they believe that the paradise of the god-state that they are ushering in is worth a few minor discomforts that some may experience. They believe that once the god-state is in place, that everyone that was discomforted will realize that it was selfish of them to complain of their discomforts and come to support with the whole of their heart and soul the greatness and the glory of the benevolent new god-state.

Can they really believe that the ends justify the means?

I think that they really do believe that they are doing a right and good thing. They believe that they are doing a good thing worth every effort and with an end so worthy that any means to bring it about can be justified.

We have seen the Democrats seriously entertain the Slaughter Solution. I think that made it clear that they really are based in a "the ends justify the means" world-view.

They are only held back by the limits of what they can get away with.

.

We are about to embark on a brave new future.

FIghting The Democrat's Health-Care Rationing Scheme The Idaho Way

Idaho points the way.

See: Idaho challenges national health care proposal; more states may follow

Washington (CNN) -- Idaho on Wednesday became the first state to pass a law saying no thanks to part of President Obama's health care proposal.

The Idaho Health Care Freedom Act says in part, "every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty."

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, a Republican, said Wednesday he signed it because he believes any health care laws should ensure people are "treated as an individual, rather than as an amorphous mass whose only purpose in this world is to obey federal mandates."

The Democrats are not just a federal party. They operate on the State and local levels as well. They should all be made to feel the heat from the Federal Democrat's attempt to ration Health-Care.

The Democrats at the State level need to feel threatened by the blow-back from what their partners are doing at the federal level.

One way to do this is to contact your State government Representatives and ask them to pass a bill like Idaho's.

No Democrat should feel safe, no mater how low or obscure the office they hold. All Democrats need to know that they will be held accountable for the Federal level Democrat's attempt to screw the citizens of the United States.

Call your local state representatives and ask them (politely) to follow Idaho's lead.

There is no time to hesitate or wait. Call them today.

Just How Stupid Is Democrat Congressman Patrick Murphy?

It may be that he just thinks the voters in his district are stupid enough to accept his weird rationalization for voting for the Obamacare abomination.

See: Murphy supports health overhaul

The 8th District congressman said the measure, if passed, will result in the "largest middle-class health care tax break in our country's history."

Calling it the "largest middle-class health care tax break in our country's history," Congressman Patrick Murphy said Tuesday he will support health care legislation, and the process by which it becomes law doesn't concern him.

What planet does Congressman Patrick Murphy(D) live on?

[Additional - added at 11:45am]

Democrat Congressman Patrick Murphy has a press release on his website that offers his rationalization for voting for the Obamacare abominations.

See: Patrick Murphy Announces Support for Long Overdue Health Insurance Reform

Health insurance reform is deficit-reducing, a condition that Congressman Murphy, as a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, stressed was critical to his support for any health insurance reform measures. In fact, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, all of the current legislative proposals reduce the deficit. Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and other industry groups, who will see millions of new customers under this legislation, are contributing hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for insurance reform.

How can effectively nationalizing what amounts to about one sixth of the US economy reduce the deficit? Is it possible that he really believes what he is saying?

Will The Democrats Slaughter The Constitution For Socialized Medicine?

Nancy Pelosi is expressing confidence that the Democrat's Health-care bill will pass. Her confidence may be well founded. The Democrats are contemplating a maneuver that has been dubbed The Slaughter rule. Named after Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), Chair of the House Rules Committee.

See: The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution

Under her proposal, Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate's health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill. This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution may pose a problem for the Democrats, but since the Health-care bill is an “all the marbles” play for them, I think that they would be willing to risk a constitutional chalenge, thinking that if in the off chance the court rules in their favor, they will own the whole of the Republic outright.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

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. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

M. Connell explains in the Wall Street Journal Article cited above:

As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."

Again, I think that the Democrats may be willing to gamble that the present makeup of the Supreme Court could possibly rule in their favor.

If they lose, its back to the status quo with a loss of a few seats in congress. The voting publics notoriously short memory will help them regain the lost seats in a few election cycles. No real penalty will be paid.

However, if they were to win at the Supreme Court, they will have made everyone in the Republic dependent on them for their health-care.

Lose a little versus win the whole damn enchilada.

(See also: Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional)