« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Making the Death Panels Permanent

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

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?!

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikedaire

    isn’t this unconstitutional? Can’t the supreme court be brought into this?

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    This applies to the internal rules of the Senate. If two-thirds agree to ignore this rule, then the Senate can consider the changes and they’ll only take a majority to pass.

    Perfectly constitutional.

  • denniswayne

    Why make the Panel the only provision subject to super-majority?

    Because that will be the primary rationing enforcement mechanism. This legislation is the foundation, both a legal and organizational infrastructure, to evolve the system ultimately to single-payer. As Obama said, ‘it may take 10 or 15 years’ and Emmanuel said ‘focus on the long-term objective’.

  • Menlo

    At issue was whether proper procedure was being followed in the case of this bill as the bill itself included changes to the rules for its own passage.

    It would have no bearing on future Congresses.

    It’s irrelevant anyway though because nothing in it will ever be repealed. The numbers and political will will never be there.

  • writeblock

    There will be plenty of will once the baby boomers enter the system. Seniors are a huge component in any election and the Dems have had that vote locked up for decades. This is a game changer.

    I also think that while the Supreme Court won’t interfere in Senate rules per se, it’s doubtful whether it would find a law binding future Congresses was constitutional.

  • writeblock

    …I have thought all along this was what was wanted. Sarah Palin had it right the first time. It was never about death counseling, it was always about rationing care according to a cost effectiveness analysis run by the WH.

  • writeblock

    by putting so much power in the hands of a bureaucracy. Much would then depend on who got elected president.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica Estrada

    They are considering the viability of the worker.

    He can look to Europe for clues.

    An influx of those needed to be treated, with less docs to treat, less innovation, poorer care.

    Baby boomers are going to be replaced by a smaller workforce.

    Sustain the healthy worker who can imput into the system, since socialized healthcare wil not be able to support the baby boomers as they age anyway.

    Harry Reid anticipates what is going to happen in the healthcare industry.

  • wayneepalmer

    Articles of Secession.

    You can’t flee this country and escape the long arm of Der ObamanFuhrer and his IRS minions…

    …unless you are a member of the Reich like Charlie Rangel, Turbotax Timmy Geitner, or at least half of Barry’s other Czars – then you can be as much a thief as you want and you will be celebrated.

    One guy I know tried. He was a tax protester who refused to file his tax forms and even though they were taking more than he owed to them out of his checks, his refusal to file the forms and admit the government had jurisdiction over him gave them grounds to hit him with almost unlimited fees. Resistance is futile!!

    He cashed out his 401K in gold and headed overseas to Southeast Asia, bought some land, and settled in to farm enough food for he and his wife and kids to survive. They figured to run into town once or twice a month and collect his Social Security checks that were being deposited in a foreign based bank.

    The last time they went into town they found not only had the SSI checks stopped but the new bank treaty just passed had allowed the US to go into his bank account and clean it out of all the other money that he had there (several thousand dollars).

    He is has heard a number of things that have convinced him that the US is working with the government where he is living to revoke his Visa and turn him over to the US to go to jail for tax evasion.

  • http://heirsinhope.blogspot.com/ drusilla

    …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?!

    The desire is to do as much harm as possible. This has clearly become pathological.

  • Tom_Holsinger

    I’m a lawyer and say the 2/3 provision here is meaningless, with the caveat that the Constitution is whatever 5 judges of the Supreme say it is, regardless of what it actually says.

    A GOP majority in the Senate can ignore this provision anytime they want just by doing so. They can also repeal it by majority vote. The same goes for filibusters. A mere majority in the Senate can do whatever it wants at any time. Senators can, and generally do, voluntarily refrain from using the power available to them.

    This over-reaching here indicates that such self-restraint is ending. This 2/3 rule will be ignored when the Democrats lose their Senate majority in 2012.

    IMO what the Democrats plan for with this (and by Democrats I mean their new hard-left majority) is to use the federal courts to enforce it when the GOP regains control of the Senate. We’ll see how sucessful they are with that.

  • djemi

    I’ve just got off the phone with my senators office, Stabenow, and the girl who answered the phone told me that there is a report out by the congresstional research dept that goes into the constatutionality of HCR and apparently I’m going to be sent it. Should be a fun read.
    Has anyone else heard?seen anything on this?

  • jeffreywturner

    At the beginning of 2013, why can’t the new GOP-led Senate just ignore the rules on this issue and repeal it?

    They can get a parliamentary ruling if need be, and back it up with up with 50 votes plus the new GOP Vice President, right?

  • eburke

    conservative acumen running things when they’re in charge.

    ::rolling eyes::

  • jeffreywturner

    The public option was the mechanism by which we were supposed to be led into single payer.

    The rationing IS important to their goal of collectivizing care (ie: making it so that there is no difference between the cheapest and most expensive insurance available), but it won’t lead us into single payer without significant additional legislation in the future.

    This is an important distinction, because the public option would have turned into single payer eventually without any further action by Congress. Also, unlike the public option, which would become an entitlement, the rationing can’t be called an entitlement, at least not directly, so it will be much easier to repeal, politically speaking. In other words, when we repeal rationing, they won’t be able to say we are “heartless monsters trying to take food out of the mouths of starving children”, like they do every time we try to repeal or reduce any kind of entitlement.

  • edwlstr

    that this BS will NOT outlive Reid. When will the end come? Before Nov 2010.

  • rivahmitch

    the “official” Death Panel will meet with less official civilian panels once enough people are killed by denial of care rulings;-)

  • mutantone

    I just want to know if the Congress is exempt from the panel review that in of it self should tell us a lot about their goals. Just like their medical plan is not included in this health care mess that they want to force upon us, if it is good enough for us it should be good enough for them. I suggest lets make it easy and give every American the same health care plan that they have after all if it is good enough for them then the people should have the same plan or are they elitist and some how better than the people that voted them in to office?

  • 1stsgt

    Reid wrote this mess along with Pelosi. If you could measure the intelligence of the two of them you wouldn’t get a thimble full. They may have college degrees and that sort of thing, but they’re both dumber than a box of rocks.