UK Financial Times: Will health-care reform pass?

Chicago Monday PM 15 March 2010

Editors, Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

The Financial Times' editorial of Monday, March 15 "The Democrats' healthcare choice" says "Democratic leaders face an uphill struggle" to implement healthcare reform and that "touting a revised bill" is not helping.

There is no 'revised bill' to tout - there is only the House bill passed last fall, and the Senate bill passed at Christmas. The Senate will not pass the House bill, and if the House does not pass the Senate bill, it's goodbye for at least 20 years before another chance comes.

Then you say "Success now depends... on a procedure called reconciliation" There will be no 'reconciliation' - if the house passes the Senate bill, it will be rushed to the President's desk for signing faster than you can say "Financial Times." This is because the President will sign anything that converts a significant portion of the private sector to federal control, and its title contains the word 'healthcare.'

And this editorial continues your habit of ignoring the fact that the United States has a written Constitution, and it does not contain a single occurance of the word 'healthcare'. It does say "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes... and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Like any number of statements, that one has a context. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, explains that context in his Federalist Paper number 41, incredulously pointing out the fallacy of believing the eight-thousand word US Constitution would give Congress the power to do whatever it wants in a single 25-word phrase.

Arnold H Nelson