By JOHN FUND

“It’s one thing to be serene under fire, it’s another to be delusional.”

More than a few Democrats in Congress are perplexed and worried that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is insisting on ramming through a 1,900-page health care bill on Saturday, just days after her party took heavy losses in Tuesday’s elections. “It reminds me of Major Nicholson, the obsessed British major in the film ‘Bridge on the River Kwai,’” one Democrat told me. “She is fixated on finishing her health care bridge even as she’s lost sight of where it’s going and what damage it could cause to her own troops.”

Indeed, the Speaker’s take on Tuesday’s off-year elections struck some of her own members as delusive “happy talk.” “From our perspective, we won last night,” a cheerful Ms. Pelosi told reporters, citing her party’s pick-up of a single House seat in a New York special election and retention of another strongly Democratic seat in California.

That’s not how many of her own troops see it. Democratic Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama told Politico.com that members are “very, very sensitive” to the fact that the agenda being pushed by party leaders has “the potential to cost some of our front-line members their seats”

On health care, added New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell: “People who had weak knees before are going to have weaker knees now.”

Ms. Pelosi, however, apparently thinks the moment is ripe to use sheer political muscle to pass legislation reordering one sixth of the economy, with zero Republican support. The right mixture of “incentives” and Rahm Emanuel-style pressure, she believes, will bring enough Democrats to heel to vote for the bill.

The obsession Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have with passing health care strikes some Democratic moderates as a completely misplaced priority. Polls show that fewer than a fifth of Americans rank health care reform as the most important issue. Their biggest concern right now is jobs. Only 29% of voters in the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll believe the economy “has hit the bottom.”

That the bill would be a job killer isn’t the only concern. Democrats worry about a backlash from the one-fourth of seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage — a program that faces steep cuts in both the likely Senate and House bills.

For the rest of this story please go to:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517603592213342.html

When I first read HR 3200 in its entirety several months ago I was appalled at the blatant disregard in the bill of the basic tenets of our Constitutional form of government. However, I underestimated what is actually being done to us. The newest version of HR 3200 that has been labeled the Pelosi Bill is the original bill on steroids. It is the most “in your face” challenge to the American people as a whole that has ever occurred. While Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama continue to reassure the American people about what the bill will do, the proof is there in black and white.

We are about to lose our Republic because this latest version of HR 3200 takes away our freedom to make our own choices in areas such as what type of insurance we want to have, (if any), how much we are willing and able to pay for insurance, which doctors we choose to take care of us, and what type of treatment we can choose based on our doctor’s recommendations. All of these decisions will now be made by federal bureaucrats in Washington who don’t know us and don’t care about us as individuals.

These decisions will be made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services based on the recommendations of an advisory panel chaired by the Surgeon General, who is appointed by the President, and made up of nine members who are not Federal employees or officers that are also appointed by the President. There are nine more members who are not Federal employees or officers who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States and there will also be up to eight more members who are Federal employees or officers and are appointed by Obama. How’s that for a stacked deck? That’s like having a task force in the Justice Department dedicated to fighting organized crime made up of a majority of members of the Russian Mafia.

By the way, if you are wondering how many medical professionals are required to be members of this advisory panel that will decide on the type of healthcare you can get, the answer is none. The previous version of the bill required at least one, but apparently it was decided by Pelosi et.al. that this was one too many.  Section 223 of the Bill on page 111 lays it all out if you care to read it.

In addition, everything I mentioned in my first article on HR 3200 is still there although additional attempts have been made to hide them. For example, there will be rationing of health care, programs for seniors will be drastically cut, and there will be programs available for illegal aliens since all they have to show is that they are “residents” of the United States. There will also be instant access available to your medical and financial records under the provisions of Section 1173A on page 76.

There are also numerous new taxes being imposed to pay for all of this and of course there are the fines that are imposed on people who don’t get health either health insurance or government approved health insurance. (These are incorrectly called taxes in the bill because if they were labeled as fines people would be entitled to protection under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. This is something that the Congress is seeking to avoid.)  Here is the link to the entire bill: http://health.burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/House_HCR_bill.pdf

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 9 that grants the Congress the right to strip the states and individuals of the United States of their rights and powers in this area. There are no Supreme Court decisions that authorize it either under the commerce clause or the General Welfare Clause of that article. Yet, when asked about the Constitutionality of the law Nancy Pelosi’s response was “Are you Serious?” In other words, we are all idiots and only the new aristocracy made up of the all the President’s appointees and the members of Congress is capable of knowing what I best for us.

The bottom line is that this alleged health care bill and a number of other bills in Congress are designed to establish a form of government that is even worse than the one the Constitution was designed to protect us from. I, for one, am getting fed up. This bill and others pending in Congress, as well as regulations being proposed by the “Czars”, will strip us of our Constitutional rights in a number of areas. We will no longer be “citizens” of the United States, but will be “subjects” of another nation entirely. It is time that the members of Congress are told in emphatic terms that if they won’t abide by their oath of office to “support the Constitution” we see no reason for them to keep their jobs.

Tell them now! We are free citizens of a Republic and will never stand for being anything less! I personally hereby re-affirm the Declaration of Independence from Tyranny made by my forefathers and for which members of my family have fought for in every war from the American Revolution to today. I can say it best by taking the same oath that was taken by the signers of the Declaration in 1776.

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Michael Connelly is a guest blogger on Facefwd.com.  For more of his excellent articles please go here

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/

Who is Michael Connelly?

 A U.S. Army veteran, a retired attorney, and published author, freelance writer, and teacher. He is the author of three books,  “”Riders in the Sky: The Ghosts and Legends of Philmont Scout Ranch”, “The Mortarmen”, and the just released novel, “Amayehli: A Story of America”.

He also teaches law courses via the Internet through colleges and universities worldwide. Here are links to the courses he teaches.

Constitutional Law: http://www.ed2go.com/courses/cl1

Winning Strategy For The Courtroom: http://www.ed2go.com/courses/wsc

Business Law For The Small Business Owner: http://www.ed2go.com/courses/law

Evidence Law: http://www.ed2go.com/courses/evl

WASHINGTON – The health care bill headed for a vote in the House this week costs $1.2 trillion or more over a decade, according to numerous Democratic officials and figures contained in an analysis by congressional budget experts, far higher than the $900 billion cited by President Barack Obama as a price tag for his reform plan.

While the Congressional Budget Office has put the cost of expanding coverage in the legislation at roughly $1 trillion, Democrats added billions more on higher spending for public health, a reinsurance program to hold down retiree health costs, payments for preventive services and more.

Many of the additions are designed to improve benefits or ease access to coverage in government programs. The officials who provided overall cost estimates did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has referred repeatedly to the bill’s net cost of $894 billion over a decade for coverage.

Asked about the higher estimate, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the measure not only insures 36 million more Americans, it provides critical health insurance reform in a way that is fiscally sound.

“It will not add one dime to the deficit. In fact, the CBO said last week that it will reduce the deficit both in the first 10 years and in the second 10 years,” Daly said.

Democrats have been intent on passing legislation this year to implement Obama’s call for expanded coverage for millions, curbs on industry abuses and provisions to slow the rate of growth of health care costs nationally.

“Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years,” the president said in a nationally televised speech in early September.

Whatever the final cost of legislation, the calendar is working increasingly against the White House and Democrats. While a House vote is possible late this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., may not be able to begin debate on the issue until the week before Thanksgiving. Additionally, the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has hinted at efforts to extend the debate for weeks if not months, a timetable that could extend into 2010.

For the rest of the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Face Forward Comments:

Like we didn’t all see that coming.  Of course it’s going to cost more than was projected by the Democrats.  If they can figure out how to provide all of this while elimintating our debt, then go for it.  I have no problem with helping the “needy” it’s defining who the needy are and finding the money to pay for it is the problem.

Eliminate the Debt, Eliminate senselessTaxes, and return to the constitution.  I realize that’s  quite a bit to ask for from a socalistic/communist administration but If they can make outrages demands…..so can I.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democratic leaders are close to securing enough votes to advance a sweeping healthcare reform backed by President Barack Obama, a top Senate Democrat said on Sunday, adding that it likely would include a national health plan that would allow states the option of dropping out.

Senator Charles Schumer, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership team, said he is pushing a compromise that would create a new national health insurance plan and allow states to opt out. The proposed public plan would compete on a level playing field with other insurers, he said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to produce a bill on Monday that will be sent to the Congressional Budget Office for an official cost estimate, an aide said.

Reid and other Democratic leaders have been talking with liberals, who want a strong public plan, and moderates who lean toward a less expansive government program and more state-level options.

They are testing the waters to see which version would win the 60 votes needed to advance controversial legislation in the 100-member chamber and hope to produce a bill this week that would then go to the Senate for debate.

“I think we’re very close to getting the 60 votes we need to move forward,” Schumer said in a NBC “Meet the Press” interview. “My guess is that the public option level playing field with the state opt-out will be in the bill.”

Senator Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that he has not decided how he will vote. He said he favors more state control on healthcare issues and would prefer allowing states to “opt in” on any proposed new government plan.

“I think the states can make decisions on their own about their own citizens,” he said.

For the rest of the story

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59M4PB20091026?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews