"Deem and Pass" or "Self-Executing Rule"

Democrats in the House of Representatives are using a parliamentary trick for the healthcare "reform" law. It is called "deem and pass" or a "self-executing rule".

The Senate already passed a version of the stupid law, before Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Now, Democrats in the Senate no longer have a filibuster-proof supermajority. They can't get a new healthcare reform law through the Senate *BUT* the House can vote on the law the Senate already passed. The House must pass the Senate law without changing a single word.

The plan is for the House to pass the Senate law with zero changes, and then have a "reconciliation" law to fix the discrepancies. The reconciliation law is not subject to filibuster, due to a technicality. (Technically, the Senate can change the filibuster rule at any time via a simple majority vote. However, that would be a precedent and Republicans can do the same thing when they're a majority. The filibuster rule can be changed at anytime, but nobody wants to be the first to do it. This is the so-called "nuclear option".)

There's one obvious flaw in this method. The Senate won't vote on the reconciliation law until Obama signs the original law. There's no guarantee that the Senate won't make modifications to the reconciliation bill. There's no guarantee they would pass it at all.

Instead of voting on the original law and then the reconciliation law, the votes are bundled together. There will only be one vote.

Some Representatives object to this trick. They won't have the opportunity to vote no on the reform bill, but later vote yes on the reconciliation part.

Any Representative who objects has a simple solution. He can merely vote no. What's the big deal?

A handful of Representatives are on the fence. The reconciliation bill might have a pork project for their district, enticing them to vote for it.

This is a common parliamentary trick. Each law has some favors for each Representative, to entice them to vote for it. That illustrates the problem with representative democracy. That's the reason unrelated riders get stuffed into laws.

Any Representative who falls for this trick is an idiot. Suppose there is something favorable in the reconciliation part of the bill. The Senate could take that out when they vote on it.

The actual healthcare "reform" law is thinly disguised corporate welfare. It's a tax hike, with the profits going to insiders. The real problem is not publicly discussed. The real problem is the State/AMA licensing cartel for doctors, combined with other damaging regulations.

The supply of doctors is restricted, driving up prices. Other regulations also increase costs. For example, there's a law requiring insurance corporations to cover X. The cost of X is passed on to customers as higher prices.

The healthcare "reform" law has a "Cadillac Plan" tax. The Senate version had a 40% tax on plans with a premium over $8500/year, with the profits paying for health insurance for people who can't afford it.

The fallacy is that the $8500 threshold is not properly indexed for inflation. After a few years, almost every plan will be affected.

My current health insurance plan, via my pimp, is barely not a "Cadillac Plan", and I have a cheap plan. My premium is just under the threshold. In a few years, inflation will bring the cost well over $8500/year. The "Cadillac Plan" tax threshold is based on the CPI, which severely understates true inflation. Due to the AMA licensing cartel, health insurance costs rise *FASTER* than true inflation; the rate of increase in the supply of doctor licenses is less than the rate of increase in the population. The number of seats in State-licensed medical schools is capped by Congress.

"Health insurance is too expensive! Let's place a huge tax on it!" is obviously stupid. Only a State parasite and pro-State troll would come up with such a stupid idea. Only a brainwashed zombie would be fooled into supporting such a law.

The healthcare "reform" law is obviously bad. Via "Problem! Reaction! Solution!", State parasites make a government-created problem worse.

It's amusing how stubborn State parasites are. Obama and Pelosi can't admit "This isn't working. Let's focus on something else." That's a form of State brainwashing. A State parasite can't admit they screwed up.

Similarly, Lehman executives and accountants can't say "We admit that Repo 105 was wrong." They have to deny their crimes. They have to spin their crime so that it seems like an honest mistake.

Should I root for healthcare "reform" or against it? Stupid laws are always annoying. However, the more stupid laws are passed, the sooner the whole scam collapses. Approximately 50% of the people don't like the current proposal. Those people will be angry at a government that no longer represents them. If the "reform" law fails, then the people who were brainwashed into supporting it will be disappointed. No matter what happens, a large percentage of people will be very angry.

There will be a 40% tax on health insurance, with the profits purchasing health insurance for people who can't afford it. There also will be a law requiring you to own health insurance or enroll in the State plan. This places an agorist in an awkward position.

What should an agorist with little/no on-the-books income do? Do you enroll in the State plan? Do you take the risk of being uninsured? (Technically, there's a fine for not owning insurance. It might be cheaper to just pay it.) Do you buy a useless health insurance policy?

This would be an obstacle to the creation of an agorist healthcare system, but simultaneously a potential boon. The State system might be so lousy that people are forced to purchase health insurance in the counter-economy. However, an agorist probably should enroll in the State plan and then not use it.

Lousy health care "reform" might be a good idea! It will decrease support for a corrupt government. People might be forced to purchase medical care in the counter-economy, if they want decent service.

I'm considering starting an agorist drug-free mental health treatment business. I don't have a State license, so I can't file claims in the State insurance scam. It would have to be 100% off-the-books. I would get customers, because I would give *MUCH* better service than a State-licensed psychiatrist or therapist. Without licensing overhead and other overhead/taxes, I could offer really cheap prices. My therapist billed my insurance $100-$200 for a half-hour visit. My psychiatrist billed my insurance $200+ for a 5 minute visit. An agorist doctor can't make an insurance claim, but the price would be low and the quality would be high.

Medical care is an excellent agorist business opportunity, due to the high State-imposed overhead. Paradoxically, I might want State parasites to further ruin the State healthcare system, to force the creation of a grey/black market in medical care.

Paradoxically, an agorist might want more bad laws. Temporarily, bad laws restrict freedom. Bad laws also undermine the legitimacy of the government. More bad laws accelerate the collapse of the State. The tricky part is "At what rate should new bad laws be passed? How can the collapse of the current corrupt system be organized so it occurs at a reasonable rate?"