Let's Pretend

I don't know what to believe anymore.

I am also apparently too stupid to understand what is actually going on up on Captiol Hill in Washington, DC.

But mainly, I am in sensory overload.

"Deem and pass;" Reconciliation Bill; CBO Scoring; Deficit Reduction; Double-Counting Medicare Cuts; New Entitlements based on taxes already pledged to other programs; Cornhusker Kickback; trolling for votes.

One fact I know for certain is that the pharmaceutical giant, Walgreens, moments ago announced they will no longer accept new Medicaid patients come June.

The decision by Walgreens takes this process well beyond politics; the reality of the proposed Health Care legislation has officially landed at our doorsteps.

The Slaughter Solution

Otherwise known as "Deem and Pass," this is the proposed unconventional method expected to be used so as to enact the tenuous Health Care package. Essentially, it would allow the House to "deem the previously approved Senate bill passed" even with amendments and without a conventional vote -- none of which is proscribed by Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution.

So, what?

When Professor Alan Morrison of GWU Law School was asked to define the word "Deem" as it relates to this process, he replied, "In class, I always say it means 'Let's Pretend.' "Deem" means, it's 'not true.'" He went further to advise anyone considering use of the procedural maneuver in passing this landmark legislation "not to do it;" the Slaughter Solution would certainly raise Constitutional issues sufficiently credible for intervention by the Supreme Court -- as it has done in the past.

The high Court has ruled at least twice in the past twenty-five years holding there is but one way to enact laws under the Constitution -- identical Bills (same text) must be passed by both Houses of Congress and then signed into Law by the President.

And curiously, the 1998 Supreme Court decision which struck down the "Line-Item Veto" specifically spoke to this "same text" voting requirement; interestingly, two "friends of the court" briefs in favor the "same text" language were written by both Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter.

Now, the self-same Rep. Slaughter, currently the House Rules Committee chairperson, has proposed using this "self-executing" procedure to craft a rule 'deeming' the Senate Bill -- even with the different (amended) language -- enacted without the need for a direct vote.

Our congressmen/women would be wise to remember the classic rebuke by the high Court in past rulings which warns "repetition of an un-Constitutional process does NOT make it Constitutional."

I absolutely have a vested interest in the pending legislation as a medical professional; at this time, absent the specifics of the reconciliation bill, however, all of us are left to simply speculate as to what will emerge with the passage of this legislation. And while I don't know what specifically prompted the decision by Walgreens, I am fearful that passage of this Bill -- especially with the stench of procedural wrangling -- will lead to further erosion in our collective confidence in elected officials and the democratic process, as well as the evolution of a potential avalanche of adverse effects for countless thousands in the months and years ahead. Walgreens may only be the beginning.

More important than my role as a physician, or even consumer, is my position as citizen.

Personally, I see this desperately flawed process, put into action so as to finagle passage of the Health Care Legislation, as an affront to the intent of our Founding Father's and as disrespectful to each of us as citizens. Let me be clear, if there is truly an urgent need to craft legislation that assures every citizen adequate medical coverage while maintaining fiscal responsibility, I am completely in favor of our elected Representatives and Senators working tirelessly toward that end. But I write this remonstration out of disappointment for the shameless move proposed by the House; circumventing the Constitution by enacting this massive Bill through the use of a clever -- if not un-Constitutional -- procedural maneuver is both reprehensible and ill-advised. The old adage reminds all to "be careful what you wish for;" rest assured, this debacle will morph into a never-ending and contentious battle for years to come.

This is not about Red or Blue. To my mind, this is simply about right and wrong. We can do better and deserve more from our Representatives.

Regardless of your point of view, I agree with even the most strident voices asserting each of us has a responsibility to make our opinion heard. The legislation will be enacted this coming Sunday; I implore everyone to take the time (and considerable patience) to make your views known to your Representatives.

Toll Free: 877-762-8762. Otherwise: 202-224-3121