I think that it is safe to say that the health care bill that President Obama is trying to cram down our throats is endangering our way of life, and most importantly, our Constitution.

In a lot of ways, Nancy Pelosi is duly responsible for this. As the debate on Obamacare draws close to its end, she has the gumption and the unmitigated gall to use a parliamentary procedure that is a ruse, at best, to get her goals accomplished. The procedure in question? It’s called the “Slaughter Solution.”

Here’s how this “constitutionally illegal” ruse works.

The plan is not to pass a Senate version of a bill on an “up-or-down vote; What it does instead is have the House of Representatives “deem” the bill as being passed without the benefit of an actual vote and then have members of the House vote directly on a series of “sidecar” amendments to fix the things that it doesn’t particularly like.

This would also allow the House Democrats to avoid going on record as to have actually voted for provisions in the Senate bill – things such as the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the “Cadillac” insurance plans – that are highly unpopular to you and I. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House send the bill to Obama for his signature without ever having an actual “up-and-down” vote on the underlying legislation.

Should this happen, you can rest assured that the Democrats (and maybe some Republicans) can actually say that they opposed the Senate bill while at the same time allowing it to pass. And folks, this falls within violation of our Constitution, as Articla 1, Section 7 states that for any bill to become a law, it has to pass both the House and Senate. Not the House only and not the Senate only. Both wings of Congress.

In other words, not “deemed” to have passed, but actually voted on. In addition, the legislation has to have the same exact language  in both chambers – and in the version signed by the President – to become a legitimate law. This is exactly why there are committees to iron out the wrinkles of competing versions of the bill. We were taught this in Civics class, remember?

This “Slaughter Solution” is aimed at our current set of checks and balances and would allow Democrats to establish a dangerous precedent. The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without any democratic accountability or even a congressional majority, at the very least.

In a sense, it is paving a road towards tyranny – whether they realize it or not. Which brings us to the POTUS.

What Obama is starting right before our eyes is a leftist revolution. Ever he assumed the presidency, he has basically regarded the Constiution as some outdated document. The powers of the federal government has imploded; in the meantime, he has nationalized some very important sectors of American life – the big banks, the auto industry, financial institutions and large plots of energy-rich land from Montana ot New Mexico.

His crap-and-trade cap-and trade legislation, along with an all-of-a-suddenly empowered EPA, looks to impose new taxes and regulations on industry nationwide. If you think about it, this is “green socialism” as much of the economy would fall under a huge, bureaucratic corporatist state. Think France when you think of this.

But the holy grail for Obama was, is and always will be health care. And goes without saying that the POTUS wants a single-payer system, if he had his way.

Numbers do not lie. The vast majority of Americans do not approve of Obamacare in its current state; what this health care legislation is doing is polarizing and fracturing our country among ideological and racial lines – conditions that are conducive to a potential civil uprising. Which is what Obama wants. Let’s not forget that there are some Democrats who actually are in not in favor of this crap bill, as well.

And let’s not forget the states; a good number of them have went on record, saying that they will sue the federal government if Obamacare becomes law. You can expect that the states would consider themselves exempt from Obamacare while the legislation is in the court system for years to come.

To illustrate how clueless and out of touch the POTUS is, he is actually willing to risk his presidency, his party’s congressional majority and most importantly, our democratic institutional safeguards that are in place  to enact it. He is a “consequences be damned” ideologue who risks our nation’s stability in the pursuit of a Socialist utopia.

Should the “Slaughter Solution” actually be enacted, not only should “true Republicans” (RINOS need not apply – we don’t need the unpredictability, thank you very much) campaign for the repeal of Obamacare during the November elections, but seriously consider impeachment proceedings against Obama and his merry band of Chicago henchmen.

We have a constutional crisis brewing here, and time is rather short. Action needs to be taken – and needs to be taken now.

For once, someone in the media (in this case Fox News Channel) stands up to the President. And you probably know what the bone of contention is here: the health care reform bill. here’s Part 1 of the interview. Stay tuned to The Republican Temple for Part 2 either later today or Friday.

The healthcare reform bill that President Obama has been touting for what seems like forever was given perhaps its last rites as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that she lacks the votes that are necessary to pass through the House – a potential death knell to the biggest item on Obama’s agenda.

The concession means that there’s little-to-no-hope for a WH-backed to pass through the House, followed by a separate measure making changes sought by House members. Pelosi added:

“In its present form without any changes I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House. I don’t see the votes for it at this time.”

The way things look right now, the Democrats haven’t made any decisions on their options, which would include breaking up the bill into smaller sections. But with the recent – and badly needed - victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the President and others are now talking about legislation that hopes to garner widespread support.

Folks, this isn’t rocket science we’re talking about here. Our country does need its healthcare system fixed. But at the same time, this country, the last time I checked, aren’t clamoring for reform that smacks of universal health care. All you have to do is look at the state of Massachusetts. Their version of universal health care is a total mess.

If Congress, especially the Democrats, had simply allowed the GOP to be involved in the putting together of the healthcare reform legislation, perhaps we wouldn’t be at this point. But because of the Dems’ tendency to not let other people be involved in the process, not to mention the utter lack of transparency, the healthcare reform bill is in shambles.

The best way for this to work for everyone involved is to do this: start over. Indeed, start this bill over from scratch. Let the Republicans become involved in the process and make this a truly bipartisan effort. But should the Democrats keep things the way they are, nothing is going to really change. Which bodes well for the Republicans when the midterm elections come around in November.

Time is of the essence, and the bottom line is this. Be proactive and do the right thing or pay the consequences at the midterm elections. We, the people, expect nothing less form our elected officials. to do otherwise will facilitate a huge issuance of pink slips near the end of the year.

I think it is common knowledge that the vast majority of Republicans, save for a RINO or three, are completely against the health care reform bill. As of late, Harry Reid has been crafting a bill that he hopes gets passed; however, there is a twist to all of this: Reid, from all appearances, has inserted language into the bill that would incentivize certain areas of the country. Here’s the inside skinny, based on page 432 of the Reid bill:

SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.

Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.

‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.

‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.

‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.

Basically folks, this section is offering increased Medicaid susidies to areas (or in this case, an area) that are recovering from a major disaster. If memory serves me correctly, one state automatically comes to mind (and don’t think that Reid didn’t factor this in when putting this bill together): Louisiana.

Remember Hurricane Katrina, people? The above section of the Reid bill can be translated into, for all intents and purposes, as a bribe. Keep in mind as to who represents the state of Louisiana: one MaryLandrieu – one of the Democrats who are against the bill. I’m gonna call this for what it really is: a bribe.

Now Landrieu faces a dilemma. Does she sign off on this piece of bribery legislation, or does she listen to the citizens of her home state? Should she relent and vote for the bill, she remains on the good side of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, if she listens to the citizens of Louisiana, she risks beng ostracized by the party that she belongs to. In other words, party standing vs. re-election.

I have a novel idea for Ms. Landrieu. Maybe she should let her conscience guide her decision on this bill and let the chips fall where they may. That’s an occupational hazard in the world of politics, folks, and Landrieu is fully realizing that. And to think that her political future will ride on a single vote. And as for Reid, he should be ashamed of himself for even inserting such language into a bill.

Photo: Life

Yes folks, it’s time for a poll from the fine folks over at Rasmussen Reports. And as you may have already figured out,  the poll is about Obamacare. If you’ve been really paying atttention, then you know that President Obama’s health care reform bill is as popular as scabies – as dangerous as scabies, too. In any event, the results are in, and it don’t look good for the Organizer-in-Chief:

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.

For the first time ever, a slight plurality of voters now express doubt that the legislation will become law this year. Forty-six percent (46%) say passage is likely while 47% say it is not. Those figures include 18% who say passage is Very Likely and 15% who say it is Not at All Likely. Sixty percent (60%) are less certain.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Democrats say the plan is at least somewhat likely to become law. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans disagree. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 34% say passage is at least somewhat likely while 58% say it is not.

The overall picture remains one of stability. Today’s record low support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this month following the president’s nationally televised speech to Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period, opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.

Intensity has been with the opposition from the beginning of the public debate. Currently, among all voters 23% Strongly Favor the legislative effort and 43% are Strongly Opposed.

Also, from the beginning of the debate, the has been a huge partisan divide. Currently 75% of Democrats favor the plan. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans are opposed, as are 72% of the unaffiliated.

As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.” A Rasmussen video report shows that 53% of those with insurance believe it’s likely they would have to change coverage if the congressional plan becomes law.

Despite strong efforts by the White House to counter that belief, including many comments by the president himself, there has been no change for months in the number who fear they will be forced out of their current coverage.

Polling released last week shows that 58% of uninsured voters favor passage of the health care plan. However, 35% of the uninsured are opposed. The divide fell largely along partisan and ideological grounds.

If the plan passes, 24% of voters say the quality of care will get better, and 55% say it will get worse. In August, the numbers were 23% better and 50% worse.

Fifty-four percent (54%) say passage of the plan will make the cost of health care go up while 23% say it will make costs go down. In August, 52% thought the plan would lead to higher costs, and just 17% thought it would achieve the stated goal of lowering costs.

While many credit or blame the town hall protests for building opposition to the plan, it appears they were simply a reflection of public opinion rather than a creator of it. This sense is confirmed by the fact that Obama’s approval ratings fell more in June and July before stabilizing in August.

One thing that did change during the month of August is that public perception of the protesters improved. Most voters came to believe that the purpose of the town hall meetings was for members of Congress to listen rather than speak. That’s partly because just 22% believe Congress has a good understanding of the legislation.

While some Democrats have charged that opposition to the president’s plan is based upon racism, just 12% of voters agree.

Voters overwhelmingly believe that every American should be able to buy the same health insurance plan that Congress has. Most favor limits on jury awards for medical malpractice claims and think that tort reform will significantly reduce the cost of health care. Forty-eight percent (48%) want a prohibition on abortion in any government subsidized program while 13% want a mandate requiring abortion coverage.

The health care debate has produced a difficult political environment for Democrats.  Several incumbent Democratic senators currently are behind in their reelection bids including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, Chris Dodd in Connecticut and Michael Bennet in Colorado. Republicans appear to have a better shot than expected at hanging on to the New Hampshire Senate seat, and GOP incumbents lead in both North Carolina and Iowa. The races for soon-to-be-vacant Senate seats in Missouri and Ohio are neck-and-neck, and longtime incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer polls under 50% against two potential 2010 challengers in California. Appointed Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand holds a very narrow lead over former Governor George Pataki in a hypothetical match-up for New York State’s 2010 Senate race.

Democrats also trail in the 2009 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia. Incumbent Democratic governors in Iowa and Ohio face tough challenges next year. In New York’s gubernatorial race, the fate of the Democrats appears to depend on which of two nominees they choose.

The health care debate has become one focal point for voters frustrated by a string of government actions. Voters overwhelmingly opposed the bailout of the financial industry and the bailout and takeover of General Motors.

As always, when President Obama conducts one of his press conferences, or in this case addresses Congress, the facts as opposed to the fiction can usually be seperated. And tonight’s address was certainly no different as it is time for me to seperate the hype from the actual truth.

Below I will list the claim by Obama, followed by the real deal:

OBAMA: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period.”

THE FACTS: Though there’s no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they’re ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn’t have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don’t face big annual pay cuts.

Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this “doc fix” from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn’t have to be paid for because they decided it doesn’t have to be paid for.

The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn’t have to be counted again.

That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: “We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

OBAMA: “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”

THE FACTS: That’s correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they’d be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

In the past Obama repeatedly said, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.” Now he’s stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan “requires” any change.

OBAMA: “The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted “You lie!” from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.

THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn’t get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.

OBAMA: “Don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. … That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.”

THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.

Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That’s particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.

Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn’t have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there’s certainly no guarantee they wouldn’t.

OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies “makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.”

THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That’s because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they’re relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: “The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.”

That doesn’t mean preventive care doesn’t make sense or save lives. It just doesn’t save money.

OBAMA: “If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage.”

THE FACTS: It’s not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.

In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.

He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage.

“To force people to get health insurance, you’ve got to have a very harsh penalty,” he said in a February 2008 debate.

Now, he says, “individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid.

OBAMA: “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”

THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. “These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage,” the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance.

So there you have it, folks – some of the claims made by OBama during Wednesday night’s address to Congress. From what I gather here, lots of fuzzy math permeates the speech and there is some questionable albeit dubious claims sprinkled in. and there were some ommissions, as well.

So by and large, not much has changed in reference to the health care reform bill at all. I presume Congress will let this all soak in and if they have a lick of commone sense upstairs, they will vote this convoluted attempt at socialized medicine down when it comes up for a vote at the House of Representatives.

Senators Tom Coburn and John Barrasso, both physicians, answer your health care bill questions and answer those from around the country.