A New America: Land of the "Free," Home of the Bereaved
March 19th, 2010
If anyone had any doubts with regard to the importance of the economy to the majority of Democrats on Capital Hill before these past few weeks, those doubts should be laid to rest as of now. Nothing--but NOTHING--is apparently more important to the leftward Politicians in Washington than healthcare coverage, despite a still soured economy and a soaring deficit. The Democrats, as of now, do not have the votes necessary to pass the Bill. While this "could" obviously change, it is certain that the increased vigor of Citizens both calling and traveling to Washington is having a profound effect.
But if Healthcare by some wretched miracle should indeed pass, we appear now doomed along with most of the other citizens of the planet to be stuck here on Earth. You see, we Americans now have the unfortunate news that the Space Program has been severely curtailed by the President who has dropped the Ares-1 Rocket Program. No doubt in at least a partial effort to keep us all on the planet as "escape velocity" seems no longer an option and Healthcare resistance is futile--according to the Mainstream Media. At least we do now have a more plausible explanation for retiring the launch vehicles while the Liberals remain in charge--for a little while longer.
Coffee or Tea? Next up: "Beer Party"
So, shall you have a Coffee or Tea Party while you wait? It would appear that we now have a pastel of multiple options even in our political activism which begs the question: Is this a great country or what? The Coffee Party, in fact, seems to be the feeble, mewlingly-moderate answer to the potent Tea Party coalition. This recent and defanged version of Tea Parties seems more like an Eunuch in a Cathouse as to its effectiveness at accomplishing the "desired" task at hand. Congress is in for "big trouble" if a "Beer Party" comes to fruition.
But as the suspense continues to build with Healthcare, many in America are wishing for this particular legislative ride to come to an end. What began as a promise for change has turned into a roller coaster ride through the Financial House of Horrors that then blasts into some cultural alien landscape which is unrecognizable in its feel--and yet hauntingly familiar in its appearance. While the ride zooms precariously into turn after harrowing turn, corkscrewing through the Land of Honey and then rocketing upwards as if heading into the throes of financial orbit--only to stall and clank haphazardly back down into the bowels of bankrupted abyss. This is our new political, financial and cultural climate where nothing is as it actually seems--nor seems to be as it was. A Brave New World, indeed.
I'll Have an EMTALA with Refried Beans, Please
We have a large number of politicians who insist that something must be done about medical care, while disingenuously insisting that thousands die every day as a result of want for it. Meanwhile, the true but not widely reported fact remains that anyone who requires medical treatment in the US cannot be denied. This as a result of a law passed in 1986 known as the EMTALA Act. The act simply states that both hospitals and ambulance providers cannot withhold treatment for any medical emergency, subject to extreme fines per case.
As if all of this is not enough--it was also reported recently that the Government now has designs on limiting fishing and has also taken an interest at moving into the realm of Internet broadband as well. The FCC has turned its attention into swiping a large part of the bandwidth in this transmittal realm, which begs the point that we have learned by slow necessity over time --that being--anytime Progressive Governance turrets its leering gaze into one particular sector--look out! Something is going to be coddled, which then turns into a squeeze, which then turns into a grip, which then turns into a suffocating embrace of coiled constriction. Then and only then is the item of interest devoured--headfirst always, and then slowly digested and made a part of the consuming "Authority."
The Statist Python of Constriction
It is the gorgingly unrepentant "Python of Statist Governance." The bigger it is, the larger its victims. This can be seen by the recently devoured American car manufacturers. In addition, and just like the Python, current Government's hunger knows no lessening of ambition; its capacity to devour is only limited by the size and the climate in effect at the time of consumption. This is, most likely, why the banks were able to resist and be disgorged by the Python's efforts. The Insurance Companies seem in a continually coiled dance of enmity with the python.
Never knowing whether they wish to mate or battle with the cunning and yet sloth python, which often seems to hunt only for the thrill of the hunt. However, the hunting expedition for the elusive Healthcare "Big Game" has always seemed to slip from the Python's coils, perhaps owing to its mammoth proportion of 1/6 th of the largest economy on the planet, in addition to its "current" worldclass standing of quality.
But now, the Python of Governance is ravenous for "the Big Game" and has nearly amassed the numbers that it needs in order to encoil and slowly devour its nearly defenseless prey. Stopping at nothing to achieve its task by any means necessary.
The US Constitution on Passage of Law
The Democrats' efforts at creatively passing Healthcare and absorbing it while not actually voting would be comical were it not so terrifying. The "Slaughter Solution" will try to pass the Senate bill along with separate revisions to the bill by voting only on the revisions. Pelosi has coined this unconstitutional trick "the Self-Executing Rule," which, no doubt, is also a creative allusion to the destiny of the Democratic Party come November. But in fact, Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution states the following:
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it..."
The Constitution, along with the Procedural Rules are very clear on both conferencing and on reconciliation. The fact that a Simple Majority must exist within both the House and the Senate to pass a Bill has not changed. Many pundits have stated that bills in the past have been made into law without voting, and yet, we have been unable to find a particular case where a major (if not up-heaving) legislative construct--which massively impacts the entire nation, such as this--has been "Demon Passed,"...oh...wait, no, that's "Deem and Pass." There have been many, many measures by both Republicans and Democrats over many, many years where small insertional amendments were added to a bill and were then "Deemed Passed" without voting--but never, ever in the history of this nation has any type of comprehensive major legislation such as the Healthcare bill been forced through in this manner. I would challenge anyone to prove this particular fact wrong.
Further, those who would argue the inverse of this have yet to offer up any clear precedence or actual legislation backing their argument with regard to this particular set of circumstances. Finally, one must remember that even were the House to pass the Bill with revisions, the Bill would now be required to be taken up again in the Senate.
Passing Comprehensive Legislation Without Voting Is Unlawful
Truthfully, there appears to be no legal way to pass non-budgetary and comprehensive "deemed legislation" without both the House and the Senate finally voting on the same exact bill. The rules as it regards the altering of any non-budgetary bill still require that any changes must be finally voted upon by both chambers. Some have also brought up the Unanimous Consensus clause which exists in the Senate, and yet even here passage requires 60 votes rather than a Simple Majority. Finally, it must be remembered that even were the House to pass the Senate bill with revisions--this then would require the Senate to take up the bill again whether by conference or by reconciliation. So even here, nothing is final.
Our Private Healthcare Saved by Abortion?
Now, I know that I am most likely preaching to the choir; however, I cannot fail to note yet again that at no time in this country's history have the American people been forced to continually undergo such damaging legislation on a repeated basis. The United States has never been more divided and yet more united in the singular convictions of the populace. There remain some few who would think to oppress the will of the People, even at the sacrifice of logic. The bellwether of abortion has, even now, weighed in heavily as certain Democrats refuse to allow federally funded abortions as a part of the means to single payer healthcare. Many individuals seem confused as to why abortion is so reviled, while many others will sacrifice themselves in a means to defeat it.
The question that many ask concerns why what "some" would refer to as a "clinical procedure" is so dreaded. On a Constitutional basis it is somewhat complicated, as we must weigh the rights of the individual woman (and perhaps even the father, Heaven forbid), against the rights of the unborn baby. On a religious and moral basis, the answer seems quite clear that the wanton taking of innocent life is simply wrong. On a Liberal "secular rights" basis, the answer is self-evident to the "anything goes mindset" that prevails. So we are left with a number of often ideological arguments battling one against the other. Which answer is Constitutionally proper and right? No one can deny that a young woman is often reviled for her moral decision to allow life at the demise of her reputation. There does, therefore, seem to be a double standard at play among those who revile abortion and, here again, revile the young woman for making the decision for life that ultimately brands her with a scarlet letter. How is it that we can revile what is a brave and moral decision regardless of the offending event?
No one seems to wish to allow that the passions at work within a healthy and vital human being are always subject to control when they often (by accident or otherwise) are not--at least not easily. But there are also those who simply choose abortion as if it were no more than a bout of flu that requires expellation. I often find it bizarre that the determinant of criminal abortion, as in the case of law, can be manifested by whether or not the individual in question used some arbitrary time limit and chose to have the "offending growth" removed by a doctor, as opposed to naturally allowing the child to gestate and be brought into being within a bathroom at the Senior Prom--and then left to expire in shock from both child and mother in what promises to be a criminal investigation.
When we look at the idiosyncrasies of the law, it becomes easier to come to a somewhat more valid conclusion. If, indeed, the law frowns on the killing of a child based upon an arbitrary determinate of age, such as in abortion (the first trimester is commonly the determinant for abortion, but not always, so one can kill within the first three months?), then we would appear to have faulty logic at play. If, here again, the law determines that it is lawful for an individual to take life as long as said individual has a medical degree, then once again we have a fault in the law. (Why does the holding of a degree sanction the taking of life?) And finally, when we look at the murder of a pregnant woman-- is not often the baby considered within a second count of murder? A fault in the law yet again if a desired child is murdered as opposed to the undesired child who is snatched from the womb. (Lacy Peterson is a painful example of the taking of TWO lives--TWO counts of murder. Too bad Mr. Peterson was not a doctor, one supposes.)
Ultimately, the Constitutional Right to Life should go to the innocent despite of or in conclusion to the methodology of the law as it reacts to abortion not performed by a Licensed Practitioner, and herein lies the rub. But in the same vein, those who revile abortion and then also revile excessively those who might choose life--despite the absence of a vow--perhaps need to take a second look at what seems to be weak logic--not withstanding the moral implications.
Isn't it fascinating that the future of American Healthcare may be decided based upon the Constitutional Rights of the innocent and unborn?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."