The Health Care Nuclear Option is still the stated plan to get Obamacare to the President’s desk. The latest wrinkle is designed to allow pro-life Democrats to vote for the Senate’s taxpayer funded abortion language while still claiming they never voted for taxpayer funded abortions. Don’t be fooled.
First, let’s be clear that the Senate bill allows tax dollars to be used for abortions. According to Chuck Donovan of The Heritage Foundation, the Senate passed Obamacare bill funds abortion in several ways, even creating an appropriation for Community Health Centers that contains no restriction on abortion subsidies. If the Senate version of Obamacare is passed by the House and sent to the President, then the House has consented to the federal funding of abortion.
House members have come up with a unique way to structure a vote that attempts to avoid the House voting on legislation before it goes to the president. First, the House Budget Committee will report out a reconciliation bill. It is unclear as to whether the Stupak Amendment will be added. This reconciliation measure would be reported for consideration by the House of Representatives as a whole.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would then package the Senate passed Obamacare bill and the House reconciliation measure into one measure. The House rules committee will report out a rule that will allow the Senate passed Obamacare bill to pass the House without a vote. The rule will be self-executing in the sense that the House will have been deemed to pass the Senate Obamacare bill if the House can muster the votes to pass the reconciliation measure. The House has used this procedure in the past during a debate on funding the Global War on Terror and in passing debt limit increases under the “Gephardt Rule.”
There is a constitutional issue raised by this procedure. Article 1, Section 7, of the Constitution states in part “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States.” If the House does not vote on a bill, is it considered to “have passed the House of Representatives?” Don’t expect the Supreme Court to take up this case, because this is in the realm of a political issue that the Courts tend to want resolved by the House and Senate through the democratic process. It is a Constitutional concern and should be discussed by all Americans. If any member of Congress claims to have not voted for the pro-abortion Senate passed bill, one can point to this provision in the Constitution to argue the opposite.
Procedurally, this would happen in the following order. The House Rules Committee would approve this self-executing rule. The House would vote on the rule that allows this scenario. Then the House will vote on the reconciliation measure. Upon passage of the reconciliation measure the Senate Obamacare bill will be deemed to have passed the House and the reconciliation measure will be sent to the Senate. This so called “Deeming Resolution” is a trick that allows the House to pass a bill they never voted upon. Therefore, the real vote on the pro-abortion Senate passed bill will be the vote on the rule to allow this scenario to roll out on the House floor.
One provision that may make the rule is a provision that does not allow the House to report the Senate passed Obamacare bill to the President until the Senate passes a reconciliation bill. Bills are enrolled before being sent to the President for his signature and the House can prevent the enrollment and delivery of Obamacare to the President until the Senate completes work on the reconciliation measure. Sound complicated? Yes and it is supposed to so the American people can’t understand that the House is on the verge of passing an unpopular Obamacare bill, yet they are reserving the right to claim that they did not vote for the Senate passed bill.
If the liberals in the House can pull off this trick, this would have allowed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to have secretly written the version of Obamacare going to the President’s desk. Do you remember Harry Reid and the Chamber of Secrets? Reid merged, without any official proceedings, the Senate HELP and Senate Finance Committee versions of Obamacare, with his personal additions to the bill including a Public Option with an opt out for states, in closed door meetings with political elites. Basically, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, OMB Director Peter Orszag, Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Max Baucus (D-MT), Chris Dodd (D-CT) and a few other liberal Senators have rewritten health care law in secret closed door meetings.
After those meeting the Senate moved to proceed to this bill, without any hearings or opportunity for public review. During debate in the Senate, Senator Harry Reid crafted a manager’s package of amendments and added the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska, a Louisiana Purchase and a Gator-Aid earmark. Now the House is preparing to pass this bill without a vote. The American people should demand that Congress start over. This secretive and non-transparent procedure is not way to force through Obamacare.
In the wake of widespread public backlash over his eleventh-hour deal to get increased federal taxpayer Medicaid funding for his vote, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has been hitting the media circuit, assuring reporters that he won’t vote for any merged health care bill that funds abortions with taxpayer dollars or has a government-run health insurance plan.
“There is zero chance (of a public option),” he said to The Chadron Record. “I’ve made it so clear. It isn’t going to happen.” But Sen. Nelson has already allowed a “public option” to flourish by voting for the Senate version last month.
Medicare, for example, is the quintessential public plan. Instead of the Medicare bureaucracy contracting with private carriers to provide health coverage, as it does today, the latest Senate bill turns that responsibility over to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency that runs the federal civil service and the popular Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEBHP). Under the Senate bill, OPM would sponsor two “multi-state” health plans —one of which must be nonprofit — to compete against private plans in the country.
In other words, there could be health plan competition on a national level in every state, but only the federal government would field these national health plans. These government-sponsored health plans would have an exclusive franchise: No private health plans would be able to compete in the same way as the selected health plans sponsored by OPM. In effect, the Senate bill creates a set of “public options” that are thinly disguised as private health plans.
“If the Senate bill becomes law, OPM would not merely serve as an umpire overseeing the competition among private health plans within the FEBHP,” says Kay Cole James, a former OPM director who has warned about this latest congressional tactic to achieve a public plan. “The agency also would become the government’s health-plan sponsor.”
That means this federal agency could field its own team of players, while setting premiums and making other rules for its sponsored health plans, competing against the existing private plans in every state of the union. If OPM officials manipulate the rules, and secure special advantages for its health plans, it could just as easily undercut private health plans and drive many insurers out of the market, James said. “What we’ll see is a stacked insurance market that favors a government-operated ‘private plan.’”
“Sen. Nelson, I ran the OPM, and I can tell you that the Senate’s OPM sponsored plan is not an alternative to a government-run health plan — it is the ‘public option,’” James charges.
Nelson and other senators should not be under the illusion that OPM’s new role is just like its old role in administering the FEHBP. The new role is very different, and is likely to consume a great deal of time, and energy and effort as the government’s player in the nation’s health insurance markets. Under current law, the agency plays the role of the federal government’s employer, providing different private health plan options that compete for federal workers, their families and retirees on a level playing field. The Senate bill language, however, not only authorizes OPM to become a health-plan sponsor, it also provides only sketchy solvency requirements for these health plans, as detailed by Heritage analyst Ed Haislmaier.
Haislmaier didn’t find any language in the provisions that prevents a run on the U.S. Treasury if either of OPM’s government-sponsored health plans faced shortfalls. It sets the country up with another industry where the government would decide what entities would be “too big to fail.”
Co-authored by Marguerite Higgins