The problem with DVR’s is that you wind up watching live shows from Friday night on Sunday night. Oh, well.
The World Over, EWTN’s weekly news program, had several people discussing the health care bill. Thankfully, several Catholic groups that had seemed to support the bill currently being discussed have come out, clearly stating that they support the goal of universal access, but not necessarily of universal health care as now written.
Even more interestingly, one of the guests pointed out that there are 179 uses of the phrase “by the secretary.” As in:
- “… deemed appropriate by the secretary…”
- “… defined by the secretary…”
- “… prescribed by the secretary…”
- “… enacted by the secretary…”
Ok, I understand some usage of that phrase, since the HHS secretary will presumably have something to do with implementing this bill. But allowing the HHS secretary to define, prescribe, and deem appropriate? Isn’t that why they’re writing such a ridiculously long bill in the first place, to define, deem what’s appropriate, and prescribe actions?
Now, remember, this would be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius, who had ties to late-term abortionist George Tiller. Tiller contributed almost $40k to Sebelius’ campaign funds, and Sebelius stonewalled attempts to prosecute Tiller for alleged breeches of Kansas law on late-term abortions.
Is this the person you want “defining” and “prescribing” what the new government health care system will and will not do? Would you trust most politicians with that much leeway?
Given that, sooner or later, power will shift in Washington, bills are usually written to be pretty explicit in what they are doing, covering, mandating, etc. In a bill this long, covering so much territory, why is anything being left to the whims of the HHS secretary?
What is being slipped in within the wiggle room that nobody would vote for if it were spelled out?