Officially, the Senate has not passed health care reform. Unofficially, the fight is over for this round. Senate Democrats overcame a filibuster by a party-line vote of 60-40, including the two independent senators who caucus with the Democrats.
As I said, it’s not officially over; the above vote merely provided official “cloture.” However, it is merely window dressing to get the bill passed by Christmas Eve, which seems very likely now.
The Heritage Foundation outlines what this bill will do to America’s budget, the unborn and taxes. In short, it’s a bad bill, which we already knew. However, there is still hope. The Senate and House bills must be compromised in conference- where the two chambers make two bills into one- and then voted on again in each chamber separately. The two biggest issues, as far as I see, that could shut down this reform effort are abortion and the public option. The House bill includes the latter, the Senate one does not. The Senate bill, however, allows public funds to be used for abortion and the House one does not. I hope Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) holds strong on his abortion language and kills the bill. A pro-life amendment would help the health care bill that finally passes (if one does) not fund the murder of the unborn.
Fox News has a very revealing analysis about where various monies went to various senators in order to bribe them votes for the cloture vote. As Fox notes in the article, uncertain votes were brought in line as a direct result of how the Senate leadership decided to use our money.
This was originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I watched Fox for a while and they talked about how much was given to various states to buy senators votes. Frankly our senate appears as corrupt as the Afghanistan government.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pm
******************************
Violates the 14th Amendment!?
******************************
If I was a State Governor in a state that get any extra benefit from this boondoggle, I would sue under the 14th Amendment Equal protection act, with the theory that Citizens of one state where not being treated equally (or in other words, have a greater burden), than citizens of another state.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Thunder,
Not a bad idea, but how would this be different than any run-of-the-mill pork barrel project?
I do think some people are stepping up to challenge the Constitutionality of the mandate.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Because like in Nebraska, they have been exempted entirely of the cost of the bill, which means other states have to pick up the bill. That is different than building a bridge or a road. Building a Bridge could be seen as a part of interstate commerce. Exempting a state has no such barring.