LOADING

Type to search

Clause in the Health Care Bill That Prevents any Changes-Opinion!

Government Politics Warnings

Clause in the Health Care Bill That Prevents any Changes-Opinion!

Truth or Fiction

Clause in the Health Care Bill That Prevents any Changes-Opinion!


Summary of eRumor:

This is a forwarded email that warns of a clause in the Health Care bill that was inserted by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to prevent any changes or repeal.  It warns that on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 that it reads: "it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."


The email goes on to warn that if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!!


The Truth:
This is an opinion that was posted on the Washington Examiner on December 23, 2009.    Click for article

On December 24, 2009 the Senate passed the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" by a yea-nay vote of 60-39.  The House version of the 2409 page bill is HR-3590.  On the afternoon of March 18, 2010 Congress announced that the House posted an additional package, HR-4872 - Reconciliation Act of 2010, that contains 153 pages of fixes to the Healthcare bill.

  Congress is expected to meet Sunday March 21, 2010, 72 hours after the bill was posted for a vote.


The current Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act HR-3590 and the Reconciliation Act of 2010HR-4872 can be viewed on the Thomas Library site:


  Click for HR-3590     Click for HR-4872


"It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."


This clause appears  three times in the text of the bill and can be found on pages 1001 and 1002 on current Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or HR-3590 that is was posted by he House.  Section 3403 relates to PART III—IMPROVING PAYMENT ACCURACY, Subtitle E—Ensuring Medicare Sustainability, Section 3403 Independent Medicare Advisory Board:

(3) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).


(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A) (i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).


(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.


Immediately following that appears conditions for waivers and appeals:



(D) WAIVER.—This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.



(E) APPEALS.—An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of theChair on a point of order raised under this paragraph.


:


Pages 1001 and 1002 of HR-3590


Several eRumors have circulated regarding Health Care Reformation and TruthOrFiction.com has finding posted:  Click for findings


TruthOrFiction.com has several calls into Senator Reid's office requesting an explanation of these clauses.
updated 03/19/10.


A real example of the eRumor as it has appeared on the Internet:

The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light.
Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid’s anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation!
Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: “. it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”
In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!!
Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.”
That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. And Reid wants the decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time.
No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his amendment through the Senate, even scheduling the key tally on it at 1 a.m., while America slept.
True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret for as long as possible, just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors.
The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal provision is not a change in Senate rules, but rather of Senate “procedures.” Why is that significant?
Because for 200 years, changes in the Senate’s standing rules have required approval by two-thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid’s amendment received.
Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a measure in the dead of night that no senator has read, and part of which can never be changed. If this is not tyranny, then what is?