American Missive

RALEIGH— Reports came out today saying the President will take Health Care Reform through Reconciliation.

The President’s logic is flawed and extraordinarily childish.

White House officials will make the argument these rules are perfectly appropriate because the procedure is not being used for the whole bill, just for some fixes; because reconciliation rules are traditionally used for deficit reduction and health care reform will reduce the deficit; and because the reconciliation process has been used many times by Republicans for larger legislation such as the tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush.

So using reconciliation doesn’t violate rules of the process because it is “just for some fixes.” That’s all. It’s perfectly fine to use this method for passing a bill if it is “just for some fixes.” And the expansion in entitlements can be pushed through using deficit reduction rules because it is assumed that an additional $2.5 trillion in spending might reduce the deficit. Besides, Republicans passed a tax cut this way. Never mind that the very same Democrats hated the tax cuts, blamed the tax cuts for all the wrongs on the planet, and tagged the Republicans as festering a “culture of corruption” because of such a move. Hypocrisy in grandeur.

In his remarks, scheduled to be at the White House, the president will paint a picture of what he will say will happen without a health care reform bill – skyrocketing premiums, everyone at the mercy of the insurance industry as recently seen with the 39% premium increases proposed by Anthem Blue Cross in California.

He will note that the “fixed” bill will include the proposal for a new “Health Insurance Rate Authority” to set guidelines for reasonable rate increases. If proposed premium increases are not justifiable per those Health Insurance Rate Authority guidelines, the Health and Human Services Secretary or state regulators could block them.

It is very possible that this “Health Insurance Rate Authority” could review the process in California and find it justifiable. Hence, no mention that preliminary reviews of the situation would find Blue Cross dangling medical treatment at the mercy of the weak and sickly. The net result, more taxes paid to a new “Panel” which rubber stamps the actuarial readings that lead Matt Damon to fear for John McCain’s life. Hey, the actuary tables don’t lie. If they can justify a voting pattern, they can probably justify a health care premium amount.

The “olive branch” of bipartisanship will be extended by Mr. Obama exemplified in the $2.5 Trillion measure by Mr. Obama’s earmark of $50 million for “demonstration projects” covering Republican requests to reign in the source of John Edwards wealth. The actuary table on this slap in the face returns 0.002% investment in a Republican solution. “Republicans can join [Mr. Obama] and Democratic congressional leaders of the House and Senate to makes these changes and to pass the bill, but either way the bill will be moving forward.” In summary, Republicans can vote for his plan, or step aside.

One must wonder, if a “demonstration project” for a Republican idea is the appropriate way forward, then would it not be appropriate to have a “demonstration project” for the Democratic idea? Why limit it to just $50 million? After all, liberal democrats are the new permanent majority. It could be an entire State! Just let a State be the “demonstration project” for the current bill. Perhaps Maine? Maybe Tennessee? Oh wait, this idea has failed when put on demonstration. That’s right.

In the end the House of Representatives must vote to pass the Senate version of the bill. Do not be fooled. Nancy Pelosi has her work cut out for her. The liberal version of the bill, with the ironically strict abortion provision, barely passed the House the first time. Now a watered down version sans Public Option is in need of passage. The selling point, reconciliation will be used “just for some fixes.” Fixes like, ooooh I don’t know, the Public Option? Hell, since it is just a little fix, no big deal, why not go ahead and add in a single payer system?

Meanwhile, all of this will render Mr. Scott Brown’s most recent “controversial vote” moot. You know the vote he cast in compliance with his campaign promises. The Jobs bill, the bill intended to bring Democrats back from the dead and shove Republicans back into a coffin, is being put on the back burner to re-focus the Nation on the single most controversial issue to date while simultaneously highlighting political hypocrisy and partisanship.

Smart move Mr. Obama. Smart move.