Well it seems almost certain now that the House will pass the Senate's version of the health care bill tonight and Obama will sign it into law shortly after that. Reconciliation may or may not happen. But in any case HCR is going to be the law. So what happens now?

Well in the short run the HCR bill will be a giant tax increase along with some regulations that will also make your premiums go up. So expect to lose roughly around 4%+ of your income.

According to this WSJ article here's what you can expect in the next four years before the real changes kick in:

• Insurance companies will no longer be able to cancel enrollees' policies because they got sick, or to place lifetime caps on their policies' payouts.
• Children can stay on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
• Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 will be eligible for tax credits to cover up to 35% of their insurance premiums.
• The Medicare payroll tax will go up by 0.9% to 2.35% on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples
• And various taxes on health care plans, drug importers, and medical device manufacturers.

And lots of other unpleasant effects will start kicking in in 2013 and 2014.

Will ObamaCare be a Pyrrhic Victory for Democrats?

So this is actually a bit of good news amidst the shit sandwich since it means that most people will experience the pain of this bill while still keeping their current health coverage. Sure it'll be expensive but at least the existing plans and insurance companies will be around for a while. Long enough for the GOP to take back the House and Senate in 2010 and maybe the White House in 2012. And right now that's looking more likely. Plus a lot of the country is now very frustrated and angry and somewhat organized. Expect this to keep growing as the bill's effect becomes more than theoretical.

Here the Democrats made the mistake of putting the stick first and the carrot years later in order to pass the CBO. It'll probably cost them control of Congress and it'll also have knock-on effects in state legislatures which will make it that much harder for them to make a comeback. Now the Democrats may feel this was all worth it since universal health care is essentially a sacrament for them. But that warm feeling only lasts so long when you're wandering in the political wilderness.

This reminds me of the time in the late 70's (which I only dimly recall) when the Roe v. Wade decision woke up a lot of normally apolitical people and pushed them towards the GOP. And if that hadn't been based on a Supreme Court decision, I would have expected it to have been overturned around 1982 or so. But in this case there's no court ruling to put HCR beyond repeal. So there's a decent chance of rolling it back if the bill stays unpopular, the GOP takes back Congress, and repealing the bill doesn't mean taking away someone's coverage. So I figure we've got about 3 years to make sure these conditions happen.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 03:07 PM | Comments (98)
Post contains 565 words, total size 3 kb.

We can rally tomorrow to take back Congress, repeal the bill, and impeach the Communist in Chief's ass once we get subpeona power and are able to find out all the laws he's broken to pass this one.

For now, let's grieve over the damage that's been done in one fell blow.

If Barack Obama does nothing else in his term in office, this will make him one of the most consequential presidents in history. It's a huge transformative event in Americans' view of themselves and of the role of government. You can say, oh, well, the polls show most people opposed to it, but, if that mattered, the Dems wouldn't be doing what they're doing. Their bet is that it can't be undone, and that over time, as I've been saying for years now, governmentalized health care not only changes the relationship of the citizen to the state but the very character of the people. As I wrote in NR recently, there's plenty of evidence to support that from Britain, Canada and elsewhere.

More prosaically, it's also unaffordable. That's why one of the first things that middle-rank powers abandon once they go down this road is a global military capability. If you take the view that the US is an imperialist aggressor, congratulations: You can cease worrying. But, if you think that America has been the ultimate guarantor of the post-war global order, it's less cheery. Five years from now, just as in Canada and Europe two generations ago, we'll be getting used to announcements of defense cuts to prop up the unsustainable costs of big government at home. And, as the superpower retrenches, America's enemies will be quick to scent opportunity.

Longer wait times, fewer doctors, more bureaucracy, massive IRS expansion, explosive debt, the end of the Pax Americana, and global Armageddon. Must try to look on the bright side...

He also aims to make Republicans partners in the destruction of America, by making us endorse his cataclysmic irresponsibility -- when we take back Congress, we will be faced with two vicious choices: Raise taxes ruinously, or allow the country to repudiate its debt and go bankrupt. Because the best option -- repealing the bill -- will be impossible until a real President is installed and next-to-impossible thereafter.

Posted by: Ace at 02:35 PM | Comments (328)
Post contains 398 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, it's still America so the obvious answer is.... more laws and lawsuits!

Bills and resolutions have been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures seeking to limit or oppose various aspects of the reform plan through laws or state constitutional amendments, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

"There's going to be a big free-for-all lawsuit about this," said Michael Bird, legislative counsel for the NCSL.

...So far, only two states, Idaho and Virginia, have enacted laws, while an Arizona constitutional amendment is seeking voter approval on the November ballot. No anti-health care reform legislation has emerged in Democrat-dominated states like Illinois and New York, according to the NCSL.

Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill on Wednesday allowing the state's attorney general to file a lawsuit opposing federal healthcare legislation requiring individuals to buy medical insurance.

Otter sees federal legislation as overreaching and bound to add to medical expenses of state governments, spokesman Jon Hanian said .

"He's concerned we can't afford it," Hanian said, adding that Otter, a Republican, is disappointed in how the Democrat-led U.S. Congress is handling the legislation.

Florida's AG (who is also running for Governor) and his counterpart from South Carolina have vowed to sue over the individual mandate.

Right now we are pretty sure the underlying Senate bill will pass tonight. After that the Senate may or may not take up the reconciliation "fixes" and even if they do, big chunks of it might not survive the process. Then on top of that there's the possibility that one of the linchpins of this disaster, the individual mandate will be thrown out in court.

As crappy as this system they are about to pass is, it could actually get worse as pieces are pulled out leaving gaps in funding and 'logic'. All this risk is being taken simply because Democrats are desperate to get something, anything, on the books. Once it's there the issue will be how to 'fix' it, not get rid of it.

It's breathtaking in its recklessness. In other words, about what you would expect from Democrats.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:35 PM | Comments (300)
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

Senate: "Hi, little brother"

House: "Hi, big bro. I really miss mom and dad...I'm having trouble even picturing them."

Senate: "Oh, by the way, you were adopted."

-End scene-

Posted by: Jack M. at 12:40 PM | Comments (236)
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Before quoting this, let me make it clear that if the House passes the Senate bill, it proceeds to Obama's desk for a signature (within an hour) and becomes law. So the bill will become law with or without reconciliation. We can block reconciliation in the Senate, but the Senate bill would still be law -- just unmodified by reconciliation.

So the GOP's floating of this objection is an 11th hour attempt to make House Democrats realize reconciliation won't happen, so as to make them vote "No."

Here's the argument:

DON STEWART, McCONNELL SPOKESMAN: “Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first. Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the Parliamentarian, we’ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they’re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House.”

BACKGROUND

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP RELEASE: “The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the health care legislation shows an increase in Social Security revenues… CBO projects that the resulting increase in wages will generate $29 billion in additional FICA contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund.” (“Health Care Reform Update,” Office of Rep. Steny Hoyer, 3/21/10)

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT: “LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution reported pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget agreed to under section 301 or 304, or a joint resolution pursuant to section 258C of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or any amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that contains recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act.” (Congressional Budget Act Of 1974, Sec. 310g, P. 31)

So, I think, the attempt to divert SS payments into this bill is illegal (and of course it's a gimmick in the first place to get a better CBO number, once again double-counting a revenue source) and so the reconciliation will fail.

I think that's the claim.

Posted by: Ace at 12:26 PM | Comments (223)
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

I assume that last bit, but as we were talking about being two votes shy or so, Stupak's six holdouts will certainly give Pelosi her God-damned majority.

Stupak gets more than an empty executive promise printed on worthless paper in disappearing ink, though -- he'll also get to talk on the floor of the House.

So, you know: Victory for him. He really held out hard, didn't he?

Here's the EO: Worthless paper.

The President can not (or at least could not, back when we were a Republic) rescind a law at the stroke of a pen, or deny someone (or some organization) federal money to which they are entitled.

Thanks to enoxo.

Email... I just got an email from Judas Iscariot. He writes, "Damn, at least I got 30 pieces of silver and a nice bag. Stupak didn't even get the bag."

P-shop by Slublog.

Posted by: Ace at 11:59 AM | Comments (470)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

This probably means he's going to announce a deal for his vote, and that Barack Obama's executive order is plenty enough for him, and that he's a yes.

As Drew's been writing, Stupak really wants to vote for the bill -- in fact, Drew keeps saying he's willing to pay Nancy Pelosi for the privilege of doing so.

Incidentally, Obama's EO cannot overturn the law. (Or at least that used to be the case, when we lived in a Republic.) If the law says x, a contradicting EO saying Y is null and void.

Even if there is some way to avoid a contradiction there, a subsequent law explicitly overruling the EO would trump it. And Democrats have a majority for that.

Posted by: Ace at 11:36 AM | Comments (185)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

On Drudge.

Posted by: Ace at 11:19 AM | Comments (333)
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

Davis and Lincoln confirming their nos seems to have hurt Pelosi.

The decisions of two Tennessee Democrats, Reps. John Tanner and Lincoln Davis, to vote no has put President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her lieutenants in a major bind.

If every member votes, Democratic leaders can only afford 37 defections. According to The Hill's whip list, there are 39 Democrats planning to vote no.

Furthermore, The Hill also has eight Democrats in the undecided/unclear column: Reps Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.), Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Mike Quigley (Ill.), Bobby Rush (Ill.) and Loretta Sanchez (Calif.).

There have been various reports on Sunday that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other anti-abortion lawmakers have agreed to an abortion deal involving an executive order from the Obama administration. However, Stupak's office are strongly denying those reports.

Thanks to DrewM.

Posted by: Ace at 10:49 AM | Comments (229)
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

This is just the vote as to whether they should have the vote. Paul Ryan objected to the bill on the grounds it constituted an illegal unfunded mandate. They'l be voting that down now.

Good God, they're going to do it.

Lynch Still Being Lobbied: Lynch is a NYS MA Democrat who flipped from Yes to No this week over the Cadillac tax. Does this mean they don't have the votes? Or they just want to make sure?

He sat on the balcony, just off the floor sporting Ray Bans sunglasses. Clinton told him to support the bill. He said he told her he's still a "no", but thought it wouldn't matter because he's hearing that Democrats are close to securing 216.

I guess we'll know soon.

Voting Goes Forward: 228-195.

Actually, I'm not sure that was the vote to have a vote. It was a vote on Paul Ryan's objection, which was rejected.

Posted by: Ace at 10:43 AM | Comments (64)
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.