A few minutes ago, I read a couple posts at Ezra Klein’s blog at the Washington Post, both dated today.  In the first one, he describes the House’s three options:

1) The House would vote on the two bills separately. Upon passage, the Senate bill would be ready for the president’s signature. The amendments, meanwhile, would go to the Senate for approval there. Call this the “Schoolhouse Rock” option.

2) The House would vote once. The vote would be on the amendments. But with that vote, the House would “deem” the Senate bill passed. (Yes, it can do that.) At that point, the main bill would be ready to go to the president for his signature, while the amendments would go to the Senate for consideration there.

3) The House would vote once, just like in option (2). But in this case, the House would deem the Senate bill passed only after the Senate had approved the amendments. Once the Senate approved the amendments, then–and only then–could the main bill go to the president for signature.

Oy. Options two and three are bad, bad, very bad ideas. Indeed, the fact that they’re under consideration suggests the House has let its anger at the Senate drive it temporarily insane.

Option two, of course, is the so-called “Slaughter Solution.”  Later today, Klein blogged again to report that Pelosi is leaning toward the Slaughter Solution:

Pelosi said that she favors the “deem and pass” strategy.  Here’s how that will work: Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House “deems” the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.

I agree with Klein that Pelosi would be insane to use this very bad strategy.  In any event, it would probably be ruled unconstitutional.  I have yet to hear of any precedent for the House taking a single vote to pass two pieces of legislation, only one of which is approved by the Senate, and the President nevertheless proceeding to sign one of those two bills into law.  I very much doubt such a precedent exists.

According to sometimes-reliable Associated Press:

Conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said in an interview that Republicans “won’t have any trouble having hundreds of amendments,” though he said each would make a valid point and not be aimed at delay.

I have some big problems with this, if it’s really true.  First of all, a strategy of “messaging amendments” didn’t exactly work wonders back in December on the main Health Care Bill, so I wouldn’t be optimistic that it would work well on a reconciliation bill either.  Secondly, the GOP has every right under the Senate Rules to delay the reconciliation bill by making as many amendments as the GOP wants to make.  If the Democrats want to stop the amendments, they would have to invoke cloture on the reconciliation bill.  Former Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove explained on March 12:

John Fortier, American Enterprise Institute, Research Fellow: “The reconciliation process would result in a finite debate, but there is some talk about the question of Republicans being able to offer dilatory amendments and whether that might cause the parliamentarian or the chair to rule that those are somehow out of order.  Without getting too much into process, what are your thoughts?”

Robert Dove, Former Senate Parliamentarian: “There is no such thing in the Senate as dilatory amendments unless you are using the cloture rule and you are under cloture.  For amendments to be ruled dilatory outside of cloture would be a total departure from Senate practice.  It has never happened. I hope it doesn’t happen now.”

Of course, if Democratic Senators cannot muster 60 votes to invoke cloture on reconciliation, they could by a simple majority invoke the nuclear option.  But that’s true of every GOP filibuster on every bill.  Why would Senator Coburn want to cave in on this particular bill?  Or maybe Associated Press misquoted him.  Does anyone have a transcript of the Coburn interview?

The House is considering whether to have a single vote on two bills at once: (1) the Senate Health Care Bill and (2) the Reconciliation Bill.

Several web sites are keeping track of how congressmen will probably vote.  For example:

David Dayen at Firedoglake

The Hill

Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics

Hotline On Call

According to Hotline On Call, “momentum has been completely on the GOP’s side over the last few days, and now, even stalwart Dems like Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Mike Capuano (D-MA) are expressing concern about the bill.”

There are a few main things to keep in mind.  First, all GOP House members are expected to vote against the Senate Bill.  So, that means Democrats are seeking votes from at least 216 of their 253 members; therefore, the GOP is hoping that least 38 Democratic House members will vote against the Senate bill.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, within a few days, Speaker Pelosi will schedule a vote.  No matter what she says, that will not necessarily signify that she has the votes.  She is under pressure from Democratic House members as well as the White House to get this over with, no matter which way it comes out.  And the last thing that Democrats want is to go beyond March 26, which is when the Easter Recess begins.

From Politico:

Senate Republicans caused a major stir Thursday when they told reporters that the parliamentarian had informed them that the Senate bill needed to be signed into law before lawmakers took up a sidecar bill to fix it.

And Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told his Democratic colleagues during a caucus meeting Thursday that he had heard the same thing.

But according to reporting by POLITICO’s David Rogers, the accounts aren’t accurate and misconstrue what the Senate parliamentarians have said. That is that reconciliation must amend law but this could be done without the Senate bill being enacted first. “It is wholly possible to create law and qualify law before the law is on the books,” said one person familiar with situation.

This Politico report is ridiculous.  The United States Code (at 2 USC 641b) says that Congress can pass “a concurrent resolution containing directives to one or more committees to determine and recommend changes in laws, bills, or resolutions.”  Consequently, Congress enacted such a resolution last year (S. Con Res. 13) that only directed “changes in laws.”  Last time I checked, a bill or resolution does not become “law” until it is signed by the President.

And who are these “Senate parliamentarians” that Politico cites?  There’s only one Senate parliamentarian, as far as I know.

Anyway, Speaker Pelosi understands that the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling prevents Congress from passing reconciliation changes to the health-care legislation until Congress passes the Senate bill. :

So we will pass the Senate bill. Once we pass it, the President signs it or doesn’t, it’s – people would rather he waited until the Senate acted, but the Senate Parliamentarian, as you have said, said in order for them to do a reconciliation based on the Senate bill, it must be signed by the President.

House leaders are considering approving the Senate health care bill by simply approving a reconciliation bill that would make some changes in the Senate health bill, without actually voting on the Senate bill.  The House would simply “deem” the Senate bill as passed.  The mastermind behind this “Slaughter Strategy” is House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter.  This nutty plan seems like a sign of desperation, plus nuttiness, of course.  Did I mention that it’s nutty?  

Democratic Senator Kent Conrad was quoted as follows in the March 9 New York Times:

It’s very hard to see how you draft, and hard to see how you score, a reconciliation bill to another bill that has not yet been passed and become law…I just advise you go read the reconciliation instructions and see if you think it has been met if it doesn’t become law.

So, I took a quick look at S. Con. Res. 13 which was passed by Congress on April 29, 2009.  This seems to be at least partly the stuff Senator Conrad was talking about:

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE SENATE.

(a) Committee on Finance- The Senate Committee on Finance shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.

(b) Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions- The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.

(c) Submissions- In the Senate, not later than October 15, 2009, the Senate committees named in subsections (a) and (b) shall submit their recommendations to the Senate Committee on the Budget. Upon receiving all such recommendations, the Senate Committee on the Budget shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive revision.

SEC. 202. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE.

(a) Health Care Reform-

(1) The House Committee on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.

(2) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall report changes in laws to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.

(3) The House Committee on Education and Labor shall report changes in laws to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.

(b) Investing in Education- The House Committee on Education and Labor shall report changes in laws to reduce the deficit by $1,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.

(c) Submissions- In the House, not later than October 15, 2009, the House committees named in subsections (a) and (b) shall submit their recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. Upon receiving all such recommendations, the House Committee on the Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill carrying out all such changes without any substantive revision.

So, I tend to agree with Steve Schippert: “The notion of anyone ‘deeming’ anything ‘passed’ without going through the actual voting process of real passage is the kind of governance seen in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Bashar Assad’s Syria or Castro’s Cuba.”  I could quote the Constitution too, but you get the idea….

If Democrats attempt to ram through a reconciliation bill by simple majority vote in the Senate, then the GOP can offer an unlimited series of amendments.  Federal law says so clearly and unambiguously: “a motion to strike a provision shall always be in order.”  That’s from 2 USC 641(d)(2).

Democrats are now threatening to amend this clear provision of federal law by a simple majority vote, which would be as nuclear as anything the Senate has ever done.  Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post explains:

If Democrats choose, as seems inevitable, to try to pass changes to the health-care plan under the rules of reconciliation, only a majority vote will be required. But that’s not the nuclear option, despite some Republican rhetoric to that effect. Under reconciliation procedures, Republicans could not filibuster the measure. But they could offer amendments. Unlimited amendments. Senate Democrats already have the historical records handy: 58 votes on the Contract With America cuts in 1995, and 44 votes on the Bush tax cuts.

Here is where the nuclear move comes in. If Republicans exercise their prerogative to propose amendments and show no signs of quitting, Democrats could use the nuclear option to make them stop. After some number of amendments, the majority leader or another Democrat could seek a ruling that the amendments had become dilatory and abusive. If the parliamentarian were to disagree, whoever is chairing the Senate at that time could overrule him. Republicans could appeal that ruling. Democrats could move to table the appeal, essentially upholding the decision that no additional amendments would be allowed. And — this is the important part — that would only require a majority vote.

If this happens, then basically the U.S. Senate will come to a grinding halt, and the federal government will be paralyzed indefinitely.  All this, in the name of legislation that Americans overwhelmingly oppose, and that cannot garner a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate.

Many Democratic House members are considering a vote for the Senate Bill with the expectation that there will subsequently be fixes.  But such fixes would require at least a modicum of GOP support, especially if the fixes cannot be done through “reconciliation.”  So, I’d suggest that the GOP should say this right now:

We promise that if the Democrats ram through this huge monstrosity of a Senate Bill, then we would subsequently support repeal of the whole thing, but we would oppose or abstain from any vote to make partial fixes, at least during this Congress.

This would likely scuttle the whole bill.  Even if it doesn’t, the full bill would then essentially be put to a referendum vote during the November elections.

On March 2, the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court met to argue about whether the State of Illinois can constitutionally ban handguns in the City of Chicago. This landmark case will not only affect gun rights, but also will determine how the Supreme Court goes about telling states and localities what they can and cannot do under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

By all indications, the Court will soon order Chicago to lift its handgun ban, but lawyers opposing the ban are deeply divided about which part of the Fourteenth Amendment the Court should invoke. The Court’s choice about which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to use is critically important, because that choice will likely determine the high court’s path for decades to come.

One of the two clauses at issue from the Fourteenth Amendment is this one: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” This clause comes into play because the Court already decided a couple years ago that the national government of the United States may not infringe a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms; the Privileges or Immunities Clause would extend these gun rights so that they also apply against states like Illinois.

The other clause at issue from the Fourteenth Amendment is this one: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This clause essentially addresses HOW people can be deprived of life, liberty or property rather than WHETHER people can be deprived of life, liberty or property. Nevertheless, the Court has used a controversial interpretation of this clause called “substantive due process” in order to protect the right of free speech (enumerated in the Constitution), the right of abortion (not enumerated in the Constitution), and many others, potentially including gun rights too. The Court’s liberal justices have enjoyed using substantive due process instead of the Privileges or Immunities Clause because substantive due process gives the Court flexibility to apply against the states unenumerated rights that do not already apply against the national government of the United States.

During the March 2 arguments, Justice Stephen Breyer argued that this gun case would involve an extreme use of substantive due process, because there is not only a liberty interest in gun possession on one side of the case, but also there may be an interest in “life” on the other side of the case. Of course, the liberal Justice Breyer has in the past not been shy about using substantive due process to impose his own views with regard to competing liberty interests. However, he is correct that the conservative justices’ use of substantive due process in this gun case would be among its most controversial uses, portending an even more aggressive use of the doctrine from the liberal side. The losers would then be democracy, self-government, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and federalism.

During the arguments on March 2, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia strongly hinted that he would grudgingly use “substantive due process” in this gun case even though he thinks it is wrong, in order to mimic the liberal justices’ use of that doctrine. If that is how the cookie crumbles, then the Constitution will crumble a bit too.

As if Scalia’s comments were not dispiriting enough, the usually astute Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the Privileges or Immunities Clause would give liberal judges “a lot more flexibility than due process.” Roberts has it backward, though; as mentioned above, the judicially-created fiction of “substantive due process” allows liberal judges to apply rights against the states even including rights that are not already enforceable against the federal government, whereas the plain text of the Privileges or Immunities Clause avoids such limitless flexibility.  Obviously, a “privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States” cannot mean something that the federal government is free to violate.

Instead of mimicking the liberal justices, the conservative justices ought to show how a constitutional government actually works. The doctrine of substantive due process is a lie, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause means what it says.

P.S. I am counsel for the group Arms Keepers, which filed two friend-of-the-court briefs in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, one asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, and the other arguing the merits of the case. I attended the oral argument on March 2, 2010.

A lot of people at Redstate have supported the idea of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment, so that U.S. Senators would again be chosen by the respective state legislatures.  One of the likely benefits of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would be that U.S. Senators would no longer be spending huge amounts of time raising money for campaigns, and would no longer be beholden to special interests; they would merely have to convince state legislators to support them.  Still, it seems very unlikely that the Seventeenth Amendment will actually be repealed any time soon, because amending the U.S. Constitution is very difficult and requires two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress (unless a constitutional convention is called).  Fortunately, there may be an easy way to simulate many of the beneficial results of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Congress could pass a law inviting every state legislature to identify its two or three favorite candidates for any open U.S. Senate seat.  If a state legislature does so, then Congress could provide public financing for those favorite candidates.

As Brad Smith has described, the Supreme Court’s recent decision on campaign finance will likely lead to increased support for public financing of congressional campaigns.  Conservatives ought to support such efforts at least to the extent that they simulate repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

Recall that President Obama became the first major-party presidential nominee since Watergate to turn down public financing for his presidential campaign.  I think Obama was wrong about that, especially because he broke his own promise to accept public financing.  Hopefully, Congress will maintain continued public financing of U.S. Presidential campaigns, and begin public financing of U.S. Senate campaigns in a way that simulates repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment.

The Boston Herald is reporting that Scott Brown is now up by four points.  As a native of the Bay State, that is good news, and a win on Tuesday would be more so.

Frankly, even if Martha Coakley were a better person than Mother Theresa and George Washington put together, Scott Brown would still deserve to win.  That’s because this election is as much about one-party rule as it is about the candidates themselves.  We currently have virtually one-party rule in the nation’s capital, and that has been the status quo in Massachusetts politics for many years.  Better to have a diversity of views that can compete with each other.

And, of course, Martha Coakley is no Mother Theresa, and no George Washington.  She recently denigrated anyone (like Brown) who would actually condescend to mingle in cold weather near Fenway Park with ordinary citizens, so probably Calcutta would be out of the question.  And she denies that we have any enemies in Afghanistan, just as she would have denied in 1777 that we had any enemies in London.

Well, maybe Coakley will have to endure being Attorney General of Massachsusetts a while longer than she anticipated.  Here’s hoping for a big upset on Tuesday.  I had the pleasure of phone-banking for Brown on Saturday in Holyoke, and have contributed a few dollars too.  Please chip in. 

If insurance companies charge their customers according to the usual methods of risk-analysis, then a 50-to-60-year-old should pay about six times as much as a 20-year-old for health insurance.  However, the impending health care monstrosity will allow older people to be charged only two or three  times as much as young people.  So, if you’re a young person who is already insured, then you’ll have to pay more to subsidize older people, and if you’re a young person who is uninsured then you’ll have to pay a LOT more.  This hidden tax would be related to youth rather than income, and thus would be very unfair and regressive.

I’ve already mentioned that the constitutionality of a federal mandate to buy health insurance is questionable.  Adding on a large premium increase for young people would add insult to injury.  Economically, these huge hidden taxes on young people would drain a large source of consumer spending from the economy.   And since this plan would ultimately bankrupt Medicare by diverting Medicare funds to subsidize insurance for more people, today’s young people would be deprived of Medicare by the time they get old.

I guess it’s no surprise that the main congressional proponents of this plan have a lot of wrinkles.  Nor is it surprising that they want to hide both the plan and the wrinkles from the public, from the GOP, and from C-Span.

I currently pay $80 per month for my policy.  It has a high deductible, but I like it.  If Uncle Sam tries to force me to pay much more than that, then I’d prefer to pay the $750 annual fine.  What the heck, I can always sign up for insurance if and when I get sick or injured, right?  Millions of people will make this same kind of decision, and so Uncle Sam would have to increase the fine.

I wonder how many Americans understand what a tricky, coercive plan is about to be foisted upon us all.  It’s all a big, dangerous shell game so that politicians can disingenuously claim that they are not rasing taxes.

Frankly, I wouldn’t mind very much if a state requires citizens to buy basic catastrophic health insurance of their choice, if they can afford it, because then John Q. Public would not be stuck paying for so much free health care for the uninsured.  But Obamacare goes way, way beyond that, and not in a good way.  It’s kind of ironic that Obama got so much of the youth vote (66% of 18-24 year olds). During the recent debate on the Senate floor leading up to the cloture vote on this legislation, Senator McCain lamented that Obamacare amounts to intergenerational theft in the sense that it would bloat the national debt, Actually, it’s intergenerational theft in many more ways than that.

There’s a way to get health insurance for tens of millions of uninsured Americans, at virtually no cost to taxpayers. Let’s pull back from the precipice, and compromise. Democrats in Congress are careening toward a massively expensive government takeover of health care which would be very difficult to repeal in the future, while Republicans have not yet embraced any plan that would make a big dent in the number of uninsured Americans. It would only take one Democratic U.S. Senator to force a compromise.
 
Here’s how it could be done. Adopt a plan that only expands “catastrophic” health insurance coverage to more people, rather than expanding routine and preventive insurance coverage to more people. Catastrophic policies are much cheaper, and people can always choose to supplement the catastrophic policies, or instead pay for preventive and routine care out of pocket. The way to finance the expanded catastrophic health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans is simple: require each uninsured person to find and buy a catastrophic policy he or she likes and can afford.  In this way, much can be accomplished without any subsidies, vouchers, taxes, or the like — all of which should be removed from the legislation.  

 
As a society, we already have individual mandates that require people to buy a lot of stuff. For example, people have to buy car insurance to go driving, and even have to buy clothes to go walking around in public. Telling uninsured people to get basic catastrophic health insurance is not a big leap, and would reduce the societal cost of treating uninsured people who suddenly need health care. Moreover, since the catastrophic policies are relatively cheap, the individual mandate can be applied to millions more people.
 
Some constitutional scholars have questioned whether the federal government really has legitimate power to impose an individual mandate like the one that is already in the Democratic legislation. But virtually no one disputes that the individual states have that kind of power, and so Congress could propose an interstate agreement to get this done. Neither the states nor the federal government would have to lay out any money, except for minor administrative costs. And if some states are reluctant to go along with such an agreement, well, Congress has experience persuading and incentivizing states to do things that they might not otherwise do.
 
Health insurance is a complicated issue, but there are some simple solutions, and this is one of them. Best of all, it’s cheap, and the present state of our economy cannot really withstand anything more. Since we already have a Medicare program for the elderly and a Medicaid program for the poor, it’s doubtful that American taxpayers would really want to do much more even if the economy were thriving.

While requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions is well-intentioned, it would have unintended effects.  For instance, people who now have expensive health plans might simply drop them, secure in the knowledge that they could always sign up again after a sickness or injury strikes.  Many other provisions in the current legislation would also have unintended effects.  Let’s just make the plan simple and affordable, and postpone debate about Democrats’ loftier goals until the economy has recovered, and unemployment is half what it is now.

A commenter recently informed me that I cannot be a conservative or a Republican unless I support getting rid of Medicare and all other federal regulation of health care.  I’m sure that Medicare can be improved, and I might even support a law saying that an individual state should be able to opt out of both Medicare taxes and Medicare payments if the state thinks it can do a better job.  However, I do NOT favor elimination of Medicare.  Does that mean I can’t be a conservative or a Republican?

Consider what was said on October 28, 1980:

JIMMY CARTER: In the past, the relationship between Social Security and Medicare has been very important to provide some modicum of aid for senior citizens in the retention of health benefits. Governor Reagan, as a matter of fact, began his political career campaigning around this nation against Medicare . . . .

RONALD REAGAN: There you go again [Laughter]. When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation and thought it would be better for the senior citizens and provide better care than the one that was finally passed. I was not opposing the principle of providing care for them. I was opposing one piece of legislation versus another.

A modest suggestion: if some Redstaters want to get rid of Medicare, keep that goal hush-hush, because it might hinder their credibility as we try to stop the current attempt by congressional Democrats to take over a sixth of the economy.

I’m curious why this site encourages people to write under an alias.  Seems to me it would be preferable to use real names.  People would feel more responsible for what they write, and so the quality of the site would increase.

Wikipedia also allows people to write anonymously, and I long ago stopped contributing to Wikipedia because it’s become a left-wing propaganda site.  People gang up on each other, attack competent editors to demand content they like, and then administrators pretend to be neutral.  This is all facilitated by the ability to hide behind fictitious names.  Of course, it’s not nearly as bad at this site, which overall is a great site.  But, I think using real names woulod make this a better site still.

Writing anonymously has a long and proud history.  For example, many American commentators in the 1780s did so (e.g. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton).  But the practice has pretty much died out in newspapers, and overall that change was for the better, I think.  Using real names increases the writers’ sense of responsibility.

I recently came across this article by Peter Schiff.*  He begins by discussing the consequences of forbidding discrimination based on pre-existing conditions:

[T]he health care bill removes the need for healthy individuals to carry insurance. Knowing that they could always find coverage if it were eventually needed, people would simply forgo paying expensive premiums while they are healthy, and then sign on when they need it. But insurance companies cannot survive if all of their policyholders are filing claims!  Correctly anticipating this incentive, the Senate bill imposes an annual fine which gradually escalates to $750 for those who fail to buy coverage. So what? I would gladly pay $750 in order to avoid the $8,000 per year I pay now for personal health insurance….Since most people are capable of figuring this out, the entire insurance industry would collapse under such a system.  There can be no question that $750 annual maximum penalty is a mere placeholder. It is the camel’s nose under the tent. When the non-discrimination provision kicks in, the only way these companies could remain solvent would be for Congress to raise the fine to the point where the penalty is greater than the gain of skipping coverage….the wily wonks in Washington have chosen to move slower, knowing that once the first step is taken, the second becomes inevitable.  However, there is another, more devious possibility. Perhaps our elected officials …. could double-cross insurance companies by not raising the fine in five years, thereby forcing the industry into bankruptcy as millions of healthy people opt-out. During the ensuing ‘insurance crisis,’ our courageous leaders could ride to the rescue with a nationalized, single-payer system.

What Schiff says here makes a lot of sense.  And it makes me increasingly opposed to a strictly partisan health care bill that is based largely upon secrecy, bribes, and brinksmanship.  We need a well-thought-out plan that both parties can support.

*Schiff is a GOP candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, which is my home state.  But, I haven’t decided yet who I’ll vote for in the GOP primary. 

When I first read about Senator Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment” that he persuaded Senator Nelson to endorse today, I commented that it didn’t seem so bad.  However, I have now more thoroughly examined the actual text of the manager’s amendment, and it looks to me like Senator Nelson has been tricked.

At page 40 of the manager’s amendment, subsection 1303(b)(2)(A) says:

(A) IN GENERAL.— If a qualified health plan provides coverage of [abortion] services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services: (i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). (ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

I’ve put the word “amount” in bold, because it’s important for what comes next.  At page 42 of the manager’s amendment, subsection 1303(b)(2)(C) says:

(C) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.– (i) IN GENERAL.–The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall establish allocation accounts described in clause (ii) for enrollees receiving amounts described in subparagraph (A). (ii) ALLOCATION ACCOUNTS.–The issuer of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies shall deposit– (I) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(I) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services other than services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i); and (II) all payments described in subparagraph (B)(i)(II) into a separate account that consists solely of such payments and that is used exclusively to pay for services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).

Thus, there will be segregation of funds only for enrollees who receive amounts attributable to section 36B of the IRS Code of 1986, or amounts attributable to section 1402 of the PPAC Act.  There will apparently not be segregation of funds for any other enrollees.  Moreover, subsection (A) that I’ve quoted above only forbids issuers of subsidized insurance policies to use funds attributable to two specific listed purposes (i.e. under section 36B of the IRS Code of 1986, or section 1402 of the PPAC Act), thus impliedly allowing use of funds from a wide variety of other listed purposes.

So, based on this examination of the text of the manager’s amendment, segregation of abortion and non-abortion money would only occur for a small percentage of people enrolled in these insurance plans, or insurance companies will be covering abortion using funds attributable to a wide variety of federal programs, or both.  That’s my reading, anyway.  Looks to me like Senator Nelson got snookered.

Doubtless Iraq would have revived its nuclear weapons program by now, if Sadaam Hussein were still in charge there.  So, we know one way to prevent such things from happening: military force.  Are there any other ways?  This question becomes increasingly urgent as North Korea and Iran continue to flout the will of the international community, which now is shuddering in fear that if the North Korean and Iranian programs are not stopped then numerous other countries will seek nuclear arms.

Well, maybe it’s time for us to enhance that fear.  For example, a country like China would be more willing to put pressure on North Korea, if they see the United States discussing very publicly with South Korea, Australia, and/or Japan how to equip those countries with their own nuclear weapons.  And if China still doesn’t do anything to stop North Korea, then a nuclear arms race in Asia is inevitable, so the United States ought to get out in front by making the arms race as orderly as possible.  We can help South Korea and Australia to nuclearize in as safe and responsible way as possible, if they promise that the nuclearization will be reversible in the event that North Korea becomes declearized (e.g. within three years).

This model could also be applied to the Middle East.  The United States could very publicly meet with defense officials in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan to see how we can help them nuclearize, on condition that it will be reversible (within a fixed time period like three years) if Iran denuclearizes.  Such action by the United States would potentially get the other members of the U.N. Security Council (like Russia and China) to take Iran nuclearization more seriously, and even if the U.N. rolls over and decides not to take any severe action against Iran then we might as well help our allies near Iran to respond appropriately to what Iran is doing.