Pelosi Won't Give Public a Week to Review Text of Health-Care Bill Before House Votes

[Northern Boy]

How many times do they have to have this happen . Here is a bill No debate just vote on it . Like the Climate Bill last week the day of the vote at 3:00 am they add 300 pages to the bill . how do you get time to read it when they are always adding sh*t to it up until the last minute . After what we saw about Eziekial Emmanual and has his plan to refuse health care to people he deems unworthy of living this should snap up a few eyebrows . for those that never saw the video yet here is the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfJtu3pwm_k


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=50229

(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) will not give the public a week to review the final text of a health-care reform bill before it is voted on later this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) has also declined to commit to giving the public a week to read and consider the final health-care bill.

At her press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi was asked whether the health-care bill would be handled differently than the stimulus bill, which came up in February. The 1,071-page final text of that bill was posted on the House Appropriations Committee’s Web site late on a Thursday night and then voted on the next day.

“When the stimulus bill came out earlier this year, members and citizens had less than two days to review the final version that came out of the conference committee before it was voted on,” CNSNews.com asked Pelosi on Thursday. “Will you commit to giving Americans at least a week to review the full conference version of the health care bill before it is voted on? And also will you commit to submitting the final version to the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] so that they can report the cost to the public?”

Pelosi would not commit to giving the public a week to review the bill, and did not respond to the question of having the CBO report on the cost of the final bill.

“Well, we will abide by the regular order. You heard the question,” she said. “It was about having the health care bill out there a week in advance. We will have the regular order in terms of the appropriate amount of time, 48 hours in advance for amendments before you file the bill, another day before you can take up the bill.

“But this bill is something that has been unfolding before the American people for a long time now. The areas of controversy are well known,” said Pelosi.

“The issue of a public option is probably the most significant debate that we will have in the House on the legislation, as I see it now. But the bill will come forth under the regular order, and that's why the three chairmen put out the draft now,” she said. “They put out some principles earlier on. The President put out his principles. We had a month before the Memorial Day break for everyone to see what was happening there to take ideas from our members.

“So it was in the public domain, but not as a bill,” said Pelosi, continuing to respond to the question of whether she would give the public a week to review the final bill. “Now they have put out this draft which has been well received, and I'm very proud of the work. It's a well managed approach to how we go forward. And when we are ready with a draft then we will put that forth, but as I say, it will be under the regular order.”

The three House committees working on the health-care plan have released what they call a “discussion draft” of the legislation. It is 850 pages long.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has produced its own 615-page draft that is missing key sections, including the section that would explain the “public option”—or government-run health insurance organization.

After the House and Senate actually pass bills, the two versions of the legislation will go to a House-Senate conference committee where they will be reconciled and where entirely new provisions can be added. The final version of the bill that emerges from this conference committee will be voted on by both houses, and if passed, sent to the president for his signature before it can become law.

This final bill is likely to be well over 1,000 pages long and will include mandates and regulations that could permanently transform the U.S. health care system.

Like Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also said last week that he would not commit to giving the public a week to review the final text of the health-care bill.

“We are going to follow the rules and do the best we can so that the new rules we have for transparency will be effective,” Reid said at his own Thursday news briefing when asked about giving the public a week to read the final health-care bill.

“We have been putting things online. We’re doing so much more than we did just a year or two ago, so I think there’s no secrets, we try to be as upfront as we can, give everyone as much opportunity as we can to move forward,” he said.

House and Senate rules differ slightly, but basically the House allows a vote three calendar days after the conference committee’s report is posted and the Senate allows a vote after 48 hours.

House Rule XIII, section 4. (a)(1), says: “. . . it shall not be in order to consider in the House a measure or matter reported by a committee until the third calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such a day) on which each report of a committee on that measure or matter has been available to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.”

Senate rules allow a voted 48 hours after the conference committee version of the bill has been posted.

Senate Rule XXVIII, Section 9. (a)(1) says: “It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference unless such report has been available to Members and to the general public for at least 48 hours before such vote.”

In February, lawmakers had less than 48 hours to review the final conference report on the economic stimulus bill before voting for it.

President Obama is pushing for both houses of Congress to vote on health-care legislation before they take a recess in August. He wants the bill on his desk by October. Republicans argue that such a sweeping reform should not be rushed.

“This is much more serious than the rushed and ill-conceived stimulus legislation,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said last week. “If we fail to do this the right way in order to simply check the health reform box, we will all suffer the consequences for the rest of our lives.”

[peaceandlove]

Originally Posted by Northern Boy

How many times do they have to have this happen . Here is a bill No debate just vote on it . Like the Climate Bill last week the day of the vote at 3:00 am they add 300 pages to the bill . how do you get time to read it when they are always adding sh*t to it up until the last minute . After what we saw about Eziekial Emmanual and has his plan to refuse health care to people he deems unworthy of living this should snap up a few eyebrows .

Blessings Northern Boy,

As long as you have opened Pelosi's pandoras box, I'm ready to look inside!

Available here: http://www.health08.org/candidates/paul.cfm

Archived Side-by-Side Comparison Tool of Presidential Candidates on Key Health Care Issues

Archived Presidential Candidate Health Care Proposal Side-by-Side Tool

"Sick Care" America Resorts to Borrowing Money to Pay for Disease

Posted by Fu Manchu on 06/23/09 10:49 AM

America has crossed a new, disturbing threshold with the announcement that Obama's new health care plan will borrow money to pay for health care. In real terms, this means that sickness and disease in America will now be financed on credit.

This is a new "disturbing threshold" because it signals the beginning of a monumental mistake: The borrowing of money to invest in disease rather than health.

None of this borrowed money, you see, will actually go to teach people about the natural medicines found in fresh foods. Nor will it set free the knowledge about medicinal herbs and nutritional supplements that the FDA has fought so hard to suppress. No, this money will be used for one thing: To mortgage America's future for the benefit of the drug companies while the health of the people deteriorates even further.

Going broke to pay for disease
Borrowing money to invest in real health might be justifiable, but borrowing money to pay for yet more "disease maintenance" (with huge payouts to Big Pharma and conventional medicine drug pushers) is idiotic. But then, America has lost all touch with reality on financial issues. What's another trillion dollars thrown down the drain on disease, anyway?

It's not just America that's going broke from disease, either: The UK's NHS service is "bleeding to death" for all the same reasons: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...te-is-now.html

The truth is, there's not enough money in the whole world to pay for the ongoing costs of keeping the population diseased. This whole global scam of censoring information about nutrition, promoting junk foods and toxic personal care products, then making money by selling them patented pharmaceuticals is quickly coming to an end. It is simply not sustainable.

Every nation that bases its "health care" philosophy on pharmaceuticals, chemotherapy and surgery while censoring truthful information about natural remedies will eventually go broke.

Investing in disease only leads to financial failure
There is simply no way around it: Disease is expensive. And while it may appear to stimulate the economy by causing money to change hands, in reality it destroys productivity, longevity and happiness while sending families, states and nations careening towards utter financial destruction. For every dollar spent on disease, a nickel could be spent preventing disease instead. We could slash our health care costs by 90 percent if we simply shifted our health care priorities to education and natural remedies instead of promoting ignorance and chemicals.

But you don't have to believe me. Just watch the USA and the UK -- both are approaching complete financial collapse due, in large part, to the unrelenting burden of costs associated with paying for disease (while censoring natural health remedies).

Western medicine, in essence, will destroy any nation that dares adopt it.

Take a look around the planet: Virtually all the countries with no debt are those countries that still use natural remedies and haven't sold out to western medicine. At the same time, all the countries nearing bankruptcy are those who have allowed western medicine to dominate their health care systems. Is this a coincidence? Of course not. Western medicine destroys both the health and the economies of nations.

Placing the corporations above the people
It is now quite clear that there will be no rational effort to save America from its self-inflicted health-related bankruptcy. Rather than saving America's future by teaching people how to be healthy, our national leaders are focusing their efforts on saving the profit margins for all the corporations that keep us sick: Food companies, drug companies, personal care product manufacturers and all the other various organizations that profit from disease.

Solutions exists for saving America's sick-care system from total demise: Over 20,000 people have already signed the Health Revolution Petition (www.HealthRevolutionPetition.org), which outlines a simple, low-cost and innovation solution for eliminating disease and saving literally trillions of dollars over the next couple of decades.

It's like I said: There's not enough money in the world to pay for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, depression and all the other diseases caused by processed foods and synthetic chemicals found in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and consumer products. The only way to prevent the financial ruin of a nation is to stop poisoning the people and start openly teaching natural health habits. You can read more important ideas in the Health Revolution Petition: www.HealthRevolutionPetition.org

Monsanto, Proctor and Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, McDonald's, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Dean Foods, Tyson Foods, Walgreens, Wal-Mart... do you know what all these powerful corporations have in common? They all make money from the selling of products that demonstrably harm human health. And yet, mysteriously, these are the very same organizations being protected by our representatives in Washington.

In protecting the financial interests of these corporations, our national leaders are driving our nation head-first into the dirt. To boost a corporation's profits for the next fiscal quarter, they will sell out the future of an entire nation.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026490_he...e_America.html

SOURCE: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20502



House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes (Update2)

By Laura Litvan

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. The measure’s cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.” Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.

Continues and Comments: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/wire.php?view=5844



Obama Outlines $313 Billion in Health-Care Savings (Update 1)

By Nicholas Johnston

June 13 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said the government can save $313 billion over the next 10 years by forcing greater efficiency in Medicare, demanding better prices from drugmakers and cutting the number of uninsured Americans.

Obama, in his weekly address on the radio and Internet, outlined the projected savings to help demonstrate that his plan to revamp the U.S. health-care system won’t add to a deficit that’s projected to swell to a record $1.8 trillion this year.

“These savings underscore the fact that securing quality, affordable health care for the American people is tied directly to insisting upon fiscal responsibility,” Obama said.

How to pay for the overhaul has emerged as one of the key points of debate as the administration and Congress work to meet the October deadline Obama set for final passage of legislation. The $313 billion would be in addition to the $635 billion “down payment” the president put into his fiscal 2010 budget for the health-care proposal. The earlier figure includes a combination of tax increases for wealthier Americans and other savings in the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Continues: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/wire.php?view=5851



The American People's Fear of Government-Run Health Care

Posted by Doug Bandow on 06/28/09 10:15 PM

New polls demonstrate just why the health care issue is so dangerous for the Obama administration. A majority of Americans give what they perceive to be the politically correct answer when it comes to government providing health care to the uninsured and taxing the rich. But they also know what is likely to happen if government does more mucking around with the health care system.

Reports Congressional Quarterly: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...s-000003155521

Harry Truman fretted that every economic adviser he consulted would tell him, "On one hand . . . but on the other hand." He longed for a one-armed economist.

As today's politicians look at polls on the health care issue, they face the same frustrating quandary.

On one hand, Americans believe that the health care system needs fundamental change. But on the other hand, they're happy with the quality of their own care and don't want medical options limited by bureaucrats.

Voters are willing to allow government to play a bigger role when it comes to cutting costs and expanding coverage. But they also fear the implications of expanded government intervention.

Continues: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=20851

[peaceandlove]

See also these threads:

The Week Private Health Care Was Saved?
Posted by Doug Bandow on 06/20/09 11:56 AM
http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14812



Economic Scene Health Care Rationing Rhetoric Overlooks Reality
June 17, 2009
Economic Scene Health Care Rationing Rhetoric Overlooks Reality
http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14730