— — What does a veterinarian have to do with today’s health care debate? Read on.

A couple of years ago I was skating down the ice during a hockey game I was officiating and started to coast as play stalled in one end. When I coast, I usually drag my left foot lightly along the ice. That particular night, my skate caught a high spot or a rut. My left foot came to a dead stop but the rest of me kept going.

I felt a tug in my midsection, right where the belt buckle is. It hurt, too. “Uh-oh,” I thought.

Uh-oh, indeed. I found I couldn’t push off on my skates as hard as I used to, which diminished my speed. At my next routine visit to the doctor, he confirmed my fear: it was the beginning of a hernia. He suggested that it could possibly heal on its own, but if it didn’t, “We’ll open that up and put the mesh in there and you’ll be all set.”

About this time last year my sister was ripping into President Obama’s health care proposal. “You better get that hernia taken care of, or you’ll end up having it done by a vet,” she warned me.

It’s interesting to look at the two sides as debate rages on in Washington over the fate of health care. Most Democrats are pushing to get the deal done and accuse Republicans of obstructing progress in the name of big business. The GOP, meanwhile, says the bill under consideration is too costly and say House Democrats are using dirty tactics to keep the bill from floor debate.

The dirtiest play of the battle has been made by Rep. Louis Slaughter, D-Fairport, who wants to “deem” passed the Senate’s version of the bill. This idea has been ridiculed as “The Slaughter Solution” by the right, but Slaughter has tried to defend the proposition.

“Those committed to the bill’s defeat have said this is unprecedented or unconstitutional. It is not ... The precedent for adopting a resolution and at the same time concurring in a Senate amendment to a bill was set as early as the 1930s. This is not new.”

Slaughter’s statement is half-accurate.

Many law experts agree that reconciliation is only permitted for bills that amend existing laws, not for new ones. The Supreme Court even ruled in a 1998 case about line-item vetoes that both houses of Congress must vote on the same exact text. The following is from National Review Online:

“If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105—33 would not have been validly enacted. [Emphasis added] If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law - one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress.”

In most instances items that have been “deemed” passed were for amendments and not to pass new legislation without debate or a yea/nay vote. When it has been done, it’s been for the so-called “Gephardt Rule” that allows raising the ceiling of federal debt or to make minor adjustments. It certainly hasn’t been used to determine 1/6 of national spending.

More from the Slaughter-house:

“Let’s keep in mind what this debate is really about: providing health care to millions of Americans that need it the most, regulating the insurers who have made record profits and hiked up rates on working families, ending the unfair practice of denying Americans insurance for having a preexisting condition and finally closing the donut hole.”

Really?

We’ve heard a lot of talk about the high costs of health care, especially when it comes to the largest health providers. However, Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson reported Monday that the 14 largest insurers in 2009 had $9 billion in profits, yet that only amounted to 0.4 percent of the $2.472 trillion spent on health care.

In Massachusetts, that state’s Blue Cross Blue Shield lost $150 million in 2009, prompting its chief executive to resign, the Boston Globe reported this week. The state’s largest private insurer, Blue Cross/Shield lost 89,000 subscribers last year. By the way, Massachusetts already has a health plan similar to the one being pushed by Obama and it still has the highest average insurance premiums in the United States.

So, where’s the money being eaten up? Probably by those who deliver the goods. The Democrats’ plan will only extend an already expensive system to millions of uninsured, with more regulation. And higher premiums.

I hope I can afford that vet.

John Hopkins is the night city editor of the Tonawanda News. His column appears Thursdays. Contact him at john.hopkins@tonawanda-news.com.