The latest battle in the healthcare war is being waged using a new strategy -- the circumvention of the intent, spirit, and true definition of the legislative process by folding the health care bill into a budget bill and using the budget reconciliation process to facilitate passage. The 1974 reconciliation method is the perfect vehicle to navigate around certain obstacles, like a Republican filibuster. Besides, the budget reconciliation process only requires a 51-vote majority in the Senate.

President Obama and his administration have unveiled “The President’s Proposal,” a health care bill that is a combination of the Senate and House versions, but heavy on the Senate version. Unfortunately, it too, is unconstitutional and is camouflage for a government takeover of this country’s healthcare system.

As of March 3, the Democrats' strategy for passing President Obama's health care plan is to have the House first pass the health care reform bill that was passed by the Senate back on December 24th. The House would do this on the basis that the Senate would then pass a bill with changes in the Senate health care bill as per President Obama's plan and as requested by House Democrats. This new Senate bill could be passed with only a 51-vote majority under the budget reconciliation process. Next, the House would pass the Senate reconciliation bill and the result would be final passage of President Obama's health care plan as embodied in the combination of the Senate health care bill of December 24 and the new health care reconciliation bill which would modify the Senate's original bill as per Obama's health care plan with last-minute tweaking by Senate and House Democrats.

Most are familiar with those commercials on television promoting prescription drugs that supposedly offer relief from a variety of ailments, if one would only pressure one’s doctor to obtain them. They have become a source of great entertainment and amusement to some, the kicker coming at the end of each commercial when the FDA-approved medication’s obligatory litany of warnings and dangerous side effects is recited: “Tell your doctor if....” and “Side effects may include.....” Some of the warnings are mild like diarrhea and constipation, some list serious effects like cancer or tuberculosis, and others admit that sometimes even death can result.

The point here is that these are all FDA-approved drugs being advertised and used extensively. Drugs that can cause serious diseases like lymphoma. Drugs that can kill. The FDA’s dismal safety record is well documented; even PBS ran a Frontline special that investigated and exposed the FDA’s unsafe drug record, the influence of Big Pharma inside the FDA, and lack of long-term testing and medical review of many, many dangerous drugs. The FDA seldom removes a drug from the market even after it proves to be harmful or deadly, however they do post quarterly reports with details of the latest potentially dangerous side effects of drugs currently under investigation.

Nonetheless, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants this same FDA, with its dismal safety record, to regulate dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA), S. 3002 (text of this bill posted on Senator McCain's website), that McCain has introduced with one cosponsor, would repeal key provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to “more effectively regulate dietary supplements that may pose safety risks unknown to consumers.”

Under attack by the DSSA is the once-protected field of supplements, as they have always been considered food. Potencies would have to be reduced to comply with what appears to be a plan modeled after the European Food Safety Authority. A new list of “Accepted Dietary Ingredients” would be “prepared, published, and maintained by the Secretary,” in the future. That’s a bit like being handed a blank check and told to fill it out later as one wishes. It could certainly be used to severely limit access to, and even production of, hundreds of life-sustaining and essential mineral, herb, and vitamin products.

MSNBC.com reprinted a report from Kaiser Health News on January 15 headlined: “Feds vs. states: Who should run health market?”

The main focus of the report is the differences between House and Senate versions of the healthcare legislation still being hammered out in Congress. As the report notes:

The report quoted from a statement sent recently to House and Senate Democratic leaders by officials of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners: “State insurance regulators have a proven track record of swift and appropriate action to protect insurance consumers, while there is no evidence that a federal regulator could or would perform comparably.”