James Taranto writes in today’s WSJ Best of the Web Today about the damning report publicized by The American Spectator two days ago, implicating Obama and Democrats in what is clearly a health care bill coverup—where they worked together to ram through and sign the bill before evidence of its true costs to consumers can come to light:

The Department of Health and Human Services is disputing a damning claim published Monday by The American Spectator. First the Spectator:

The economic report released last week by Health and Human Services, which indicated that President Barack Obama’s health care “reform” law would actually increase the cost of health care and impose higher costs on consumers, had been submitted to the office of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius more than a week before the Congressional votes on the bill, according to career HHS sources, who added that Sebelius’s staff refused to review the document before the vote was taken.

“The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote,” says an HHS source. “Which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think.”

Now the HHS response, via Jake Tapper of ABC News:

“That story’s not true,” Richard Foster, the chief actuary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told ABC News. . . .

“I have no idea how that rumor got started, but it’s completely unfounded,” he says.

Foster tells ABC News that he received a copy of the bill on March 18, and knew then that he wouldn’t be able to do a thorough analysis of it before the vote. He informed Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, about that fact in a letter on March 20.

“We could not have given anything to them the week before the bill was held,” as the Spectator item claimed, Foster said, because he didn’t receive the bill until March 18.

The House passed the Senate Democrats’ health care reform bill on Sunday night, March 21, as well as “fixes” to the bill.

Four days later, on March 25, Senate Democrats passed the fixes.

We’re not sure who’s right, except that Scott Ott is dead on:

Contrary to statements from Republican operatives, the Medicare actuary’s report on health care reform did NOT languish on HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius’ desk for a week before the bill passed.

It appears those GOP rascals are lying again, according to ABC’s Jake Tapper.

What really happened, is that Congress passed that bill before the actuary, Richard Foster, had time to analyze it. In fact, he had warned them he couldn’t get it done before the hastily-scheduled vote. . . .

So, President Obama didn’t hide the negative data until Democrats could ram the bill through, Democrats rammed the bill through so negative data would not appear until after passage.

The HHS actuary looks a lot better in Tapper’s account than in the Spectator’s, which is not surprising since Tapper’s account is based on an interview with the HHS actuary. But either way it is clear that the president and congressional Democrats worked actively to conceal just how bad ObamaCare was until after they had imposed it on the country.

Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers is reporting on all the people who are completely confused about Obama’s health care bill and are wondering when their “free health care” kicks in. She writes:

Two weeks after President Barack Obama signed the big health care overhaul into law, Americans are struggling to understand how — and when — the sweeping measure will affect them.

Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.

“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.

McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage.

…Adults with pre-existing conditions are frustrated to learn that insurers won’t have to cover them until 2014 (though those under 18 will be protected in late September); then they become both hopeful and confused upon learning that a federal high-risk pool for them will be established in the next few months. “Health insurance is so confusing. You add this on top of it and it makes it even more confusing,” McLean said.

In other words, thanks to Obama, health care is now just as complicated and frustrating as the federal tax code.

It’s all part of Obama’s comprehensive federal shell game. Welcome to hope and change!

James Taranto of the WSJ’s Best of the Web Today, in his usual humorous style, has the following commentary on this:

What’s especially good about this is that the “Where do we get the free ObamaCare?” line is only the second-funniest thing about the article. The funniest is McClatchy’s gross display of political bias. President Obama claimed that ObamaCare would give everyone health insurance and improve the quality of care while reducing the deficit–and McClatchy thinks it’s the fault ofopponents that some people expect to get something for nothing?

It occurs to us, too, that the overwhelming public opposition to ObamaCare is all the more remarkable given that there are people who have been led to believe it means free stuff for them. If you take out these misguided souls, and the people who are happy about a partisan victory (which includes many in the media), are there any supporters left?

Anne E. Kornblut of The Washington Post has this great account of some poor woman who made the mistake of asking Obama about his decision to raise taxes on an already over-taxed nation only to get a 17-minute, 2,500-word rambling response (which all but answered the question):

Even by President Obama’s loquacious standards, an answer he gave here on health care Friday was a doozy.

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care” package.

“We are over-taxed as it is,” Doris said bluntly.

Obama started out feisty. “Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,” the president said.

He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

Always fond of lists, Obama ticked off his approach to health care — twice. “Number one is that we are the only — we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance,” he said.

A few minutes later he got to the next point, which seemed awfully similar to the first. “Number two, you don’t know who might end up being in that situation,” he said, then carried on explaining further still.

“Point number three is that the way insurance companies have been operating, even if you’ve got health insurance you don’t always know what you got, because what has been increasingly the practice is that if you’re not lucky enough to work for a big company that is a big pool, that essentially is almost a self-insurer, then what’s happening is, is you’re going out on the marketplace, you may be buying insurance, you think you’re covered, but then when you get sick they decide to drop the insurance right when you need it,” Obama continued, winding on with the answer.

Halfway through, an audience member on the riser yawned.

But Obama wasn’t finished. He had a “final point,” before starting again with another list — of three points.

“What we said is, number one, we’ll have the basic principle that everybody gets coverage,” he said, before launching into the next two points, for a grand total of seven.

His wandering approach might not matter if Obama weren’t being billed as the chief salesman of the health-care overhaul. Public opinion on the bill remains divided, and Democratic officials are planning to send Obama into the country to persuade wary citizens that it will work for them in the long run.

It was not evident that he changed any minds at Friday’s event. The audience sat politely, but people in the back of the room began to wander off.

Even Obama seemed to recognize that he had gone on too long. He apologized — in keeping with the spirit of the moment, not once, but twice. “Boy, that was a long answer. I’m sorry,” he said, drawing nervous laughter that sounded somewhat like relief as he wrapped up.

But, he said: “I hope I answered your question.”

James Taranto of the WSJ had this keen observation to make in his Best of the Web Today column of Obama’s audacious statements demanding patience for his health care plan:

No, it was not an April Fool’s joke, but an actual headline from the Associated Press: “Obama Urges Patience as Health Care Law Kicks In.” Here’s what the president had to say Thursday in Portland, Maine:

“Every day since I signed reform into law, there’s another poll or headline that says, ‘Nation still divided on health reform, no great surge in public support.’ Well, yeah. It’s only been a week,” Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery. “Before we find out if people like health care reform, maybe we should wait until it actually happens. Just a thought.”

For the past year, Obama has been demanding that Congress enact his so-called reform immediately. Last July, it had to be done before the August recess. Then, after Democrats suffered big losses at the polls in November, it had to be done by the end of the year. It was so urgent that the House voted stayed in session late into Saturday night after Election Day, and the Senate actually voted on Christmas Eve.

“Slow down!” shouted the voters of Massachusetts. In January they elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate for the first time in almost 40 years, in large part on Scott Brown’s promise to stop ObamaCare. The president charged ahead anyway, declaring that the time for debate was over. His allies in Congress bribed, bullied and cajoled their way to a razor-thin one-party majority in the House, and in the Senate they found a procedural work-around to render Massachusetts voters irrelevant.

Last month, in a process as ugly as it was heedless of public opinion, Obama got what he wanted. Two weeks ago the time for debate was over. Now the president is still talking ObamaCare, trying to sell the public on what he and congressional Democrats have already imposed upon us. And he’s insisting that the public owes it to him to be patient.

It reminds one of that old joke about the definition of chutzpah: when a member of a death panel denies medical treatment to his parents, then pleads for mercy because he’s an orphan.

Now here’s a doctor with a policy I kinda like.

Dr. Jack Kassel, a urologist in Florida, posted a sign on his door saying: “IF YOU VOTED FOR OBAMA… SEEK UROLOGIC CARE ELSEWHERE.   CHANGES TO YOUR HEALTHCARE BEGIN RIGHT NOW, NOT IN FOUR YEARS.”

Obviously, he cannot turn anyone away for ethical reasons, but as he says, “if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

The Orlando Sentinel has a report on this story, and mentions one such potential patient who did turn away upset.

All I can say is: hey, how much “excrement” do you think these doctors can take before they finally get upset and start dishing it back out? Who can blame this guy?!

Surprise.

Here’s another campaign promise that RealClearPolitics has unearthed that Obama has conveniently forgotten about. Forward to the 1:00 mark or so of the below video and watch Obama announce to a cheering, adulating crowd:

when there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have 5 days to look online to find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government is doing!

And here is Obama today, signing a bill that was passed less than two full days ago.

Last night marks one of the worst and most disgraceful events in the history of our great country, the spectacle of perhaps the most partisan Congress in history in full view forcing its wildly unpopular agenda onto the people using shamelessly flagrant bribes, undeniably brazen lies, and some of the most corrupt back room deals ever to be made within the confines of the U.S. Congress.

I was completely sickened watching it unfold on TV, especially when Nancy Pelosi was apparently unable to even hold back her own laughter as she tried to claim that this bill will deliver all that delicious pie in the sky AND will be “doing all of that by [sic] saving the taxpayer $1.3 trillion!” You could tell she was struggling with her laughter at that line and, despite her attempts, it didn’t take very long for the smile to completely break through. Guess what, America? Nancy Pelosi was laughing at what a bunch of idiots you all would be if you actually do believe her!

I don’t think I understand what these Democrats are really doing, though. Do they really think that the public, which is overwhelmingly against so many aspects of this bill, is going to simply overlook this unabashed rape of our country? Surely they must realize that most of them are going to get their asses kicked out of office come November, no? And, if so, are they really so ideologically committed to this bill that they are willingly giving up their seats like that? Or has Obama and Pelosi managed to convince them that they’ll be somehow miraculously come out unscathed?

I’m just glad that this fight isn’t over yet. The Senate Republicans are challenging this as a violation of reconciliation rules and are supposed to have met with the Senate parliamentarian today. Apparently, the Democrats’ plan to alter the so-called “Cadillac” tax on high-end insurance plans would affect the Social Security trust fund, which is not allowed under reconciliation rules.

Additionally, at least 10 states are preparing to sue over this bill, challenging its constitutionality in terms of its forcing citizens to make what has always clearly been a discretionary purchase. Reports of up to another couple of dozen states filing suit, as well, are also circulating.

All I can say is that I really hope the Republicans are successful in challenging this abomination and I really can’t wait until November. Oh, it’s going to be 1994 all over again… or probably even better.

And, with that, let me leave you with a wonderful video medley of the Liar-in-Chief that will have you wondering when your $2500 is going to materialize!

In what has to be one of my favorite interviews of Obama ever, Bret Baier of Fox News grilled him relentlessly about the health care bill, the sweetheart deals that it’s loaded with, and the underhanded methods that the Democrats in Congress are using to get it passed.

As can be expected, Obama did not answer a single question directly. Instead, following each question posed to him, he replied with one variation after another of his talking points. Bret tried at one point to circle him back to the question at hand (“Okay, back to the original question…”), but it was literally impossible to get a single answer to any of those questions out of him.

This interview highlighted Obama’s two biggest liabilities (aside from his socialist ideology, of course):

• Obama’s obvious inability to answer direct questions. This is a huge liability for two reasons:

First, because the public remains in the dark as to what the facts are or what his position or opinion is of something. When we want to know how something is going to work, we never find out. When we want to know clearly what his stance is on a particular issue, we never get a clear answer. Ultimately, he stands for nothing but fluff, and while fluff can carry you through a nomination and election, it wears very thin very quickly once you’re in office and people are expecting more than just fluff, more than just smooth rhetoric.

Second, because the public never gets a straight answer from him, and people are experiencing this repeatedly and are finally getting completely exasperated. People are realizing that for someone who is supposed to be so “articulate”, he simply cannot articulate a basic answer to a direct question and this evasiveness quite naturally and justifiably becomes insulting to most people’s intelligence. Even people who supported him fervently during his election are now beginning to wonder whether Obama really thinks he’s smarter than everyone in that he can keep this charade up forever without anyone catching on.

• Obama’s obvious inability to ever be wrong. The attitude he portrays is such that if you ever disagree with him, you must either be (a) unaware of all the facts; (b) stupid; (c) wrong; or (d) all of the above. Therefore, when anyone challenges him, he just keeps reiterating his talking points again and again, almost as if you’ll finally come around to his position if you heard it outlined in fifteen more variations.

With no sign of either of those liabilities improving, it’s no wonder his popularity is going down the toilet fast, with his disapproval rating now even higher than his approval rating! Unfortunately for him, his gigantic ego completely eclipses any view he might ever have of these shortcomings.

Just for kicks, here are a couple of great Q&A sets from the interview that illustrate this complete inability to ever give a simple answer (click here for the complete transcript):

BAIER: You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: “the United States Congress owes the American people a final up or down vote on health care.” So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?

OBAMA: Here’s what I think is going to happen and what should happen. You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they’ve got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have.

We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. So you’ve got a good package, in terms of substance. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.

So, of course, we never hear whether or not he supports the use of this Slaughter rule…

BAIER: Let me insert this. We asked our viewers to e-mail in suggested questions. More than 18,000 people took time to e-mail us questions. These are regular people from all over the country. Lee Johnson, from Spring Valley, California: “If the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary to pass a bill, when you have an overwhelming majority in both houses and the presidency?”

Sandy Moody in Chesterfield, Missouri: “If the health care bill is so wonderful, why do you have to bribe Congress to pass it?”

OBAMA: Bret, I get 40,000 letters or e-mails a day…

I’ve got the exact same e-mails, that I could show you, that talk about why haven’t we done something to make sure that I, a small business person, am getting as good a deal as members of Congress are getting, and don’t have my insurance rates jacked up 40 percent? Why is it that I, a mother with a child with a preexisting condition, still can’t get insurance?

So the issue that I’m concerned about is whether not we’re fixing a broken system.

Funny, because his “exact same emails” don’t seem to be talking at all about the issues that Bret’s emails are raising. Not to mention that he still never answers the simple question posed by Bret’s emails, namely, “if the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary…”

BAIER: Back to the original question… So you support the deem and pass rule?

OBAMA: What I’m saying is whatever they end up voting on — and I hope it’s going to be sometime this week — that it is going to be a vote for or against my health care proposal. That’s what matters. That’s what ultimately people are going to judge this on.

If people don’t believe in health care reform — and I think there are definitely a lot of people who are worried about whether or not these changes are, in some fashion, going to affect them adversely. And I think those are legitimate concerns on the substance — then somebody who votes for this bill, they’re going to be judged at the polls. And the same is going to be true if they vote against it.

So much for going back to the original question…

BAIER: OK, the Florida deal, in or out?

OBAMA: The Florida deal —

BAIER: Paying for Medicare Advantage, exempting 800,000 Floridians from —

OBAMA: My understanding is that whatever is going to be done on Medicare is going to apply across the board to all states.

BAIER: Connecticut, Montana — there are a lot of deals in here, Mr. President, that people have issues about.

OBAMA: Bret, the core of this bill is going to be affecting every American family. If you have insurance, you’re going to be able to keep it. If you don’t have insurance, you’re going to be able to buy into a pool, like members of Congress have. We’re going to make sure that we have delivery system reforms that strengthen Medicare, that are going to make sure that doctors and hospitals are providing better service and better care, and this is going to reduce the deficit.

Now, there are going to be in this, as I just mentioned, on things like making sure that states who have gone through natural catastrophes and medical emergencies are getting help, but those are not going to ones that are driven by politics, they’re going to be driven policy.

So, does Obama not know whether the Florida deal is in or out, or does he just not want to answer the question? Either way, we’ll never know… just as we won’t know that regarding the Connecticut and Montana deals.

BAIER: You said a few times as Senator Obama that if a president has to eke out a victory of 50 plus one, that on something as important as health care, “you can’t govern.” But now you’re embracing a 50 plus one reconciliation process in the Senate, so do you feel like you can govern after this?

OBAMA: Well, Bret, the — I think what we’ve seen during the course of this year is that we have come up with a bill that basically tracks the recommendations of Tom Daschle, former Democratic senator and leader, but also Bob Dole, former Republican leader, Howard Baker, former Republican leader. The ideas embodied in this legislation are not left, they’re not right, they are — they are —

Hmm… I guess Senator Obama is someone else entirely, because President Obama doesn’t seem to know how to even acknowledge Senator Obama’s statement, much less explain the apparent hypocrisy.

And, finally, there was this finishing knockout punch by Baier on the subject of the sweetheart deals:

BAIER: Mr. President, you couldn’t tell me what the special deals are that are in or not today.

OBAMA: I just told you what was in and what was not in.

BAIER: Is Connecticut in?

OBAMA: Connecticut — what are you specifically referring to?

BAIER: The $100 million for the hospital? Is Montana in for the asbestos program? Is — you know, listen, there are people — this is real money, people are worried about this stuff.

OBAMA: And as I said before, this — the final provisions are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes, but…

(Side note: the vote is supposedly in less than 72 hours and only now has it been posted. So much for Obama’s “many days”…)

Again, see the link above for the full transcript or, better yet, you can see Obama squirm on the actual video of the interview.

James Taranto writes a particularly insightful piece today describing what could quite credibly be a slippery slope towards eugenics for the Democrats’ healthcare bill. In fact, it is particularly frightening just how credible it all is:

National Review’s Bob Costa catches up with Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who, although not opposed to ObamaCare, has said he and a dozen or so like-minded colleagues will vote “no” if it includes subsidies for abortion:

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue–come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Stupak frames his argument too narrowly. Forget about “life” for a while–the Democratic leaders’ position ought to be equally shocking to those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

What Stupak is hearing from his colleagues is not the pro-choice argument that the government should permit abortion as a matter of individual liberty. Rather, they claim that the government should encourage abortion as a social expedient–a cost-cutting measure.

The first thing one must say about this position is that when stated categorically, it is nonsense. Sure, babies are expensive. But from society’s standpoint, that expense is a necessary investment–the only way to produce the next generation of productive adults. A society in which babies are a net long-term cost–in which the average person consumes more over his lifetime than he produces–is unsustainable. A policy aimed at reducing the number of babies born would be economically ruinous, because within a few decades it would result in a shortage of workers and taxpayers.

But as a matter of cold cost-benefit analysis, not all babies are equal. Some are costlier than others, and not all grow into productive adults. In particular, certain disabilities and diseases are very expensive to treat and limit productive adulthood by causing either early death or lifelong dependency.

In order to be effective, a policy of using abortion as a cost-cutting measure would have to aim at preventing the birth of babies with such pre-existing conditions. The goal would be not a reduction in the number of babies, but an “improvement” in the “quality” (narrowly defined in economic terms) of the babies who are born. This is known as eugenics.

Getting government into the eugenics business would have disturbing implications for reproductive liberty. What would happen to a woman who received, say, a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome? She would be free (as she is today) to exercise her right to have an abortion. But would she be free to exercise her right not to have an abortion?

Presumably the government could not directly force her to abort, as this would provoke political outrage and run afoul of Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings. But one can easily imagine softer forms of coercion coming into play. A government-run insurance plan, for instance, could deny or limit coverage for the treatment of certain conditions if diagnosed before fetal viability, on the ground that the taxpayer should not be forced to pay the costs of the woman’s choice to carry her child to term. Perhaps the courts would find this an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose, but that does not strike us as an open-and-shut case.

Pro-choice advocates have argued that even persuasive measures aimed at curtailing abortion are objectionable, although the Supreme Court has disagreed. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey,the court by a 7-2 vote upheld a Pennsylvania law mandating “that counselors provide women seeking abortions with information concerning alternatives to abortion, the availability of medical assistance benefits, and the possibility of child support payments.”

It’s not hard to imagine the federal government’s establishing counseling protocols designed to encourage abortion in certain situations–for example, informing a woman after a Down syndrome diagnosis of the burdens (but not the joys) of rearing a child with that condition. This seems no less an infringement of reproductive liberty than the Pennsylvania law to which the pro-choice side objects.

For Bart Stupak, who believes abortion is a form of homicide, opposing abortion subsidies is an easy choice. But those who are pro-choice–as opposed to pro-abortion–should object as strongly to government policies designed to encourage abortion as to those intended to discourage it. “Keep your cost-cutting measures off my body!” may not become the new pro-choice rallying cry, but it should.

As if Obama hasn’t already broken countless campaign promises that he made to countless people to pander to them and gain their votes, his decision to shut C-SPAN out of the health care bill negotiations (save for one possible hour of “show coverage”) is the mother of all broken promises.

The only thing transparent about this shallow, empty snake are his lies.  It’s just unfortunate that so many people were so blind to that transparency for so long.

Speaking of which, even former Obama-loving network, CNN, flat out calls Obama a liar:

It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected… here’s hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year…

Check out this damning “medley” of clips of Obama lying through his teeth:

In the wake of Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) widely discussed vote, new polls are showing him losing the next election by a margin of 61-30!  That’s the great news; I really hope that every idiot who voted for this bill gets canned in their next election.

The bad news, though, is that the next election for Nelson’s seat isn’t until 2012. That gives him a lot of time to fight the horrible publicity he got from this vote. Let’s hope that his constituents have a long memory (which they may not actually even need, once they start feeling the repercussions of this outrageous bill).

Read the Rasmussen report here.

Sherman Frederick of the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote a short but hilariously cynical piece in response to Harry Reid’s statement that it’s a senator’s job to get his state something in return for his vote on the heath care package.

He wrote:

I’m very disappointed.

It’s Christmas morning and I can’t find one single gift to Nevada from Sen. Harry Reid under the health-care “reform” tree.

Louisiana got a nice package. Florida and Connecticut, too. And Nebraska scored a really big present.

Just three days ago Uncle Harry said that if a senator didn’t get his state “something” in the health-care “reform” package, then that senator wasn’t doing his or her job.

And yesterday Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., upped the ante. He said that every state did “get something” in the measure.

OK. I’m excited. What’s Nevada’s gift? Uncle Harry, as everyone knows, is the Big Kahuna of the Senate. He “brings home the bacon,” his TV commercials claim. So if Nebraska got dispensation from Medicaid increases forever, one can only imagine the magnitude of Nevada’s present.

Flat screen TVs for every man, woman and child? No, no — that’s way too small.

A new military base … for every county?

A lump of coal and a power plant to fire it?

Maybe double our water allotment from the Colorado River?

Oh, I know: Lifetime exemptions for Nevada residents and all of their descendents from federal income tax? That would be nice.

Whatever it is, I can’t wait for the UPS truck tomorrow. The suspense is unbearable.

This from Politico:

In what has to be one of the only humorous moments in this whole health care bill fiasco, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) actually voted NO on the bill before realizing his mistake and voting yes, prompting a laugh in the chamber, especially from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

(I guess we can’t say that Harry Reid never had an intelligent moment in his life. He now had one, albeit a very quick one .)

Why bother fighting the Democrats when they’re so busy fighting amongst themselves already?

Even with a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, they still can’t get the votes to pass their party-line version of the bill.

So, they have their president threaten non-conforming Senators, like Obama reportedly did with Ben Nelson (D-NE), threatening to shut down an air force base employing 10,000 Nebraskans, national security be damned, if Nelson doesn’t fall into line with the Dems’ health care plan (see the story here)!

And, here you have former presidential primary nominee Howard Dean writing an opinion piece in the Washington Post slamming the health care bill and saying that he would vote “no”.

The GOP really doesn’t have to do much more than just sit back and watch the Dems self-destruct.

The Democrats have been notorious for pulling bait-and-switch schemes in Congress this year. They introduce a bill for voting, then somewhere down the road, they introduce an amendment which rewrites entire sections of the bill, and try to have the amendment “considered read”, so that the vote is actually done on an amendment the contents of which are unknown to most.

Recently, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) gave the tactic a shot by introducing a 767-page amendment mandating a single-payer government-run health insurance plan and asking to have it “considered read”. Thankfully, Tom Coburn (R-OK) objected and demanded to have the monstrosity read aloud on the Senate floor.

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had this to say today from the Senate floor:

“Senators on both sides acknowledge that the health care bill we’re considering is among the most significant pieces of legislation any of us will ever consider.

“So it stands to reason that we’d devote significant time and attention to it.

“Indeed, some would argue that we should spend more time and attention on this bill than most — if not every — previous bill we’ve considered.

“The Majority disagrees.

“Why? Because this bill has become a political nightmare for them.

“They know Americans overwhelmingly oppose it, so they want to get it over with.

“Americans are already outraged at the fact that Democrat leaders took their eyes off the ball. Rushing the process on a partisan line makes the situation even worse.

“Americans were told the purpose of reform was to reduce the cost of health care.

“Instead, Democrat leaders produced a $2.5 trillion, 2,074-page monstrosity that vastly expands government, raises taxes, raises premiums, and wrecks Medicare.

“And they want to rush this bill through by Christmas — one of the most significant, far-reaching pieces of legislation in U.S. history. They want to rush it.

“And here’s the most outrageous part: at the end of this rush, they want us to vote on a bill that no one outside the Majority Leader’s conference room has even seen.

“That’s right. The final bill we’ll vote on isn’t even the one we’ve had on the floor. It’s the deal Democrat leaders have been trying to work out in private.

“That’s what they intend to bring to the floor and force a vote on before Christmas.

“So this entire process is essentially a charade.

“But let’s just compare the process so far with previous legislation for some perspective. Here’s a snapshot of what we’ve done and where we stand:

• The Majority Leader intends to bring this debate to a close as early as this weekend — four days from now, on this $2.5 trillion dollar mistake

• No American who hasn’t been invited into the Majority Leader’s conference room knows what will be in that bill

• This bill has been the pending business of the Senate since the last week of November — less than four weeks ago.

• We started the amendment process two weeks ago.

• We’ve had 21 amendments and motions — less than two a day.

“Now let’s look at how the Senate has dealt with previous legislation.

“No Child Left Behind (2001):

• 21 session days or 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 44

• Number of Amendments offered: 157

“9/11 Commission/Homeland Security Act (2002):

• 19 session days over 7 weeks.

• Roll Call votes: 20

• Number of Amendments offered: 30

“Energy Bill (2002):

• 21 session days over 8 weeks

• Number of Roll Call votes: 36

• Number of Amendments offered: 158

“This isn’t an energy bill. This is an attempt by a majority to take over one sixth of the U.S. economy — to vastly expand the reach and the role of government into the health care decisions of every single American — and they want to be done after one substantive amendment. This is absolutely inexcusable.

“I think Senator Snowe put it best on Tuesday:

‘Given the enormity and complexity,’ she said, ‘I don’t see anything magical about the Christmas deadline if this bill is going to become law in 2014.’

“And I think Senator Snowe’s comments on a lack of bipartisanship at the outset of this debate are also right on point.

“Here’s what she said in late November:

‘I am truly disappointed we are commencing our historic debate on one of the most significant and pressing domestic issues of our time with a process that has forestalled our ability to arrive at broader agreement on some of the most crucial elements of health care reform. The bottom line is, the most consequential health care legislation in the history of our country and the reordering of $33 trillion in health care spending over the coming decade shouldn’t be determined by one vote-margin strategies – surely we can and must do better.’

“The only conceivable justification for rushing this bill is the overwhelming opposition of the American people. Democrats know that the longer Americans see this bill the less they like it. Here’s the latest from Pew. It came out just yesterday.

“A majority (58 percent) of those who have heard a lot about the bills oppose them while only 32 percent favor them.”

“There is no justification for this blind rush — except a political one, and that’s not good enough for the American people.

“And there’s no justification for forcing the Senate to vote on a bill none of us has seen.

“Americans already oppose this bill. The process is just as bad.

“It’s completely reckless, completely irresponsible.”