Health Care Bill Poison Pill

I got an anti-Obamacare email today. It wasn't quite hysterical but it came close enough to make me decide to try and find out if it really was true. After all, I try to keep in mind that not all of the yahoos in Congress are crooks (altho of late it is getting harder and harder to keep that reasonable mindset).

Well, I checked and, yup, looks like this is for real. And as claimed in the email message, it appears to have been entered into the bill on an amendment by Senator Reid of Nevada. For any doubting Thomases who are worried that what I was working from is spam or propaganda, according to the Library of Congress legislative info website the language is there in Part III, Sec 3403 of HR 3590. Check it for yourself.

I haven't bothered to validate the statement in the email message about the amendment being slipped in during dark of nite. It passed 60 to 39 which says that everybody was there altho whether they were non compos mentis at the time of the vote is in question.

Here is the most current version (as of today anyway) of the language that is problematical (emphasis is mine):

(3) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).

`(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).

`(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

`(D) WAIVER- This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

`(E) APPEALS- An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph.

I suspect that subparagraph (C) is not Constitutional. Anyway, since it is not an amendment to the Constitution it could be overturned by a vote in Congress (if ever we get a majority in Congress who have more backbone than a chocolate eclair). Whether the Supreme Court would overturn it if it came before them in litigation is problematic since that seems to be more dependent on who is on the bench rather than where dispassionate Constitutional logic leads.

I suspect that the REAL poison pill is subparagraph (D). IMHO (and I'm not a lawyer) this is a fig leaf that keeps the Supremes off subparagraph (C). After all, it makes it possible to change the subsection, but only in the Senate and only with a 60 vote majority. Even if it got thru the Senate, I suspect that there would be obstructionists who would try to litigate it to death by claiming that since the House can't change it, a change by the Senate cannot become the law of the land.

This version of health care deserves to die! And the good citizens of Nevada should be ashamed to have sent a dirtball like Harry Reid to the Senate!