I was able to view the latter portions of the C-Span coverage of the House proceedings Saturday evening regarding H.R. 3962. C-Span has recordings of individual speeches on the floor. I viewed the following:
- Closing arguments of the Republicans
- Closing arguments of the Democrats
- Vote on the Stupak Amendment
- Vote on the GOP substitute bill/amendment
- Final vote on H.R. 3962
and have some comments regarding each.
Closing arguments of the Republicans - House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is one of the few I saw who was actually citing the bill and not just spouting rhetoric - actual engaging the text of the legislation to back his claims. Boehner remarked on the authority given to the Health Choices Commissioner (Czar). The most noteworthy, in my opinion, is that the Health Choices Czar can override state law. Section 251 illustrates this. See the following paragraph from that section:
In the case of health insurance coverage not offered through the Health Insurance Exchange (whether or not offered in connection with an employment-based health plan), and in the case of employment-based health plans, the requirements of this title do not supercede any requirements applicable under titles XXII and XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, parts 6 and 7 of subtitle B of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or State law, except insofar as such requirements prevent the application of a requirement of this division, as determined by the Commissioner
The Heritage Foundation lists some notable duties of the Commissioner as well:
- Oversee the millions of Americans who would qualify for insurance subsidies
- Audit the country’s 1,300-plus health insurers
- Have power to collect whatever data the office deems necessary, which could involve review of medical records
- Assess fines
- Define our terms for us. This commissioner/czar would dictate all the definitions used in health insurance policies. After all, if you control the language, you control the debate
- Appoint a national health ombudsman to examine consumer complaints, but only in “a linguistically appropriate manner”
Closing arguments of the Democrats - The Democrat closing arguments seemed mostly to consist of talking points and rhetoric.
Vote on the Stupak Amendment - This amendment reinforces the ban on federally funded abortion. John Shadag R-Ariz voted “Present” which I believe was some kind of strategic move. National Right to Life said they would score any “Present” vote as a “nay”. I’m not sure precisely what Shadag’s goals were but we’ll see if the scoring by NRL has any adverse affect for him.
Vote on the GOP substitute bill/amendment - During the Motion to Recommit, Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) began discussing Tort Reform. I do believe that tort reform is needed but I am not surprised that the amendment did not pass.
Vote tally for Motion to recommit with instructions => Yea 187 | Nay - 247 (12 Democrats voted Yea)
Final Vote on H.R. 3962 - The final vote was indeed quite close. 218 votes were needed to pass and 41 Democrats voting Nay would be enough to defeat the bill if all Republicans voted Nay.
Vote Tally => Yea - 220 (1 Republican voted Yea) | Nay - 215 (39 Democrats voted Nay) Joseph Cao (R - LA) voted Yea
Uniting Against a Common Enemy
Uniting against a common enemy is a common means by which two normally opposing sides might cease hostilities because something more important than that which divides them needs to be addressed. I wonder if a slight twist on this might be found between the American public, the majority of which is opposed to H.R. 3962 and other similarly power grabbing legislation on the Hill, and Congress, especially Liberals (in both parties) who support this march down this road to serfdom.
The end game for many Liberals supporting this legislation is arguably not (merely) the expressed goals of each of these individual bills, but rather it is control. I believe that there are some in this camp who genuinely believe that centralized control is the way to alleviate many of the country’s problems. Others just want the power. As the Oracle in The Matrix said, “What do all men with power want? . . . More power.” In The Road to Serdom Hayek wrote,
Nobody saw more clearly than the great political thinker de Tocqueville that democracy stands in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom,” he said. “Democracy attaches all possible value to each man,” he said in 1848, “while socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
This puts those Liberals in Congress at odds with the American people. Ironically, the form in which the legislation takes which these Liberals are using to achieve control may marginalize the very power they seek. The point that Boehner raises with regard to the Health Choices Commissioner/Czar having the authority to override state laws is one example of that. In addition, much of the legislation (in H.R. 3962, Cap and Trade, etc.) is written in such a way that the details will be worked out and implemented by regulatory means - unelected officials. Cass Sunstein, who is the Regulatory Czar, would have the authority to control any of these officials and Sunstein reports to Obama, not Congress. So the Executive branch (Obama) can do an end run around Congress to control even the very details of how all this legislation gets implemented.
If the power of Congress is marginalized this way, so is the political influence of the American people. Much of our influence is through our elected representatives. It does the American people nor Liberals (or Conservatives) any good for that power to be marginalized. Those in Congress seeking more power and control over the American people might be wise to consider that someone else may be seeking even more power and control over them.
It would be wise for the American people and Congress to unite against this threat to everyone’s liberty and this violation of the principle of separation of powers.
