Browsing Posts in Healthcare
Find out more at Docs for Patient Care: www.d4pc.org
A message from www.docs4patientcare.org
If 109 more signatures gathered, even Pelosi couldn’t halt new vote-
Posted: July 07, 2010
8:08 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A measure in the U.S. House of Representatives that would force the chamber into a new vote on Obamacare, even if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want it, is halfway toward its needed support.
Advocates say constituents need to call their representatives to tell them to get on board right away so that the petition is positioned to move forward whether or not the GOP becomes the majority in the House after the 2010 fall elections.
The plan is a discharge petition pushed by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
“Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Steve King of Iowa, move to discharge the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, Rules, House Administration and Appropriations from the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4972) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was referred to said committees on March 25, 2010, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures. …”
By Terence Jeffrey (Archive) · Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Dr. Donald Berwick of the Harvard Medical School does not like free enterprise, but he does like rationing.
Two years ago, in England, he delivered a talk celebrating the 60th birthday of Great Britain’s National Health Service, the bureaucracy that runs that nation’s socialized medical system. He apparently entertained some fear that day that the Brits might turn back to free enterprise. So, in his address (as reprinted in the July 26, 2008, edition of the British Medical Journal), and as reported this week by Matt Cover of CNSNews.com, he offered British socialists some words of advice.
“Please,” he told them, “don’t put your faith in market forces — it’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need. In the U.S., competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system.”
To Berwick, America’s health care system is not the model for the world. Great Britain’s is. In his view, it is vital for the Brits to hold high the flame of socialized medicine so the world can follow its lead.
“I hope you will never, ever give up what you have begun,” said Berwick. “I hope you realize and affirm how badly you need — how badly the world needs — an example at scale of a health system that is universal, accessible, excellent and free at the point of care — a health system that, at its core is like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.
“Happy birthday,” the ebullient doctor told the British health care socialists.
If you have not noticed already, this man has a crush on collectivism. “Cynics beware,” he said. “I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.”
This love extends to approbation for rationing health care and using the health care system to redistribute wealth.
“You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach,” Berwick told the Brits. “You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.”
And they get to play Robin Hood in lab coats. “You could have protected the wealthy and the well,” he said, “instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is just must redistribute wealth.”
Last June, after President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus law that included funding for a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, thus pre-positioning the federal infrastructure that would be needed to guide federal health care rationing decisions under a new national health care system, Berwick gave an interview to Biotechnology Healthcare that was brought to light this week in a report by Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.
Berwick explained that there are three steps to “comparative effectiveness research.” The first is to determine whether a therapy works or not. The second is to determine how well the therapy works compared to other therapies. The third is to do a cost-benefit analysis.
“If a new drug or procedure is effective, and has some advantage over existing alternatives,” Berwick said, “then does the incremental benefit justify the likely additional cost?”
Now, in a free country where people freely chose to pay for their own health care with their own money, this is a good question for any prudent consumer. It is exactly that “free market force” that Berwick implored the British socialists not to put their faith in.
But in a country where the government has taken regulatory and fiscal control of the health care system — where the state is subsidizing most people’s care — and where government bureaucrats make the decisions about who gets what treatment, this question is not the animating moving force behind the invisible hand of the market, it is the dark materialistic spirit behind the iron hand of a life-and-death tyranny.
In the socialistic health care system that Berwick envisions — and that President Obama signed into law two months ago — life-and-death rationing is inevitable.
“The decision is not whether or not we will ration care,” Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare, “the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
President Obama has nominated Berwick to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the federal agency that runs these two massive proto-socialist health care programs. If confirmed, he will oversee the massive cuts that Obamacare mandated in Medicare.
He will do the cost-benefit analysis on your life or on the life of a loved one.
Unless, of course, too many incumbent senators make the self-diagnosis that a vote to confirm would result in the premature end of their sickly political lives.
JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
“I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements.” “Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs.”
“I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let’s put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there.”
JUDGE KITHIL continued: “Other problems I have with
this bill include:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance
to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
** Page 58 and 59: The government will have
real-time access to an individual’s bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by
the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – ACORN).
** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this
section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same
regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors’ fees.
** Page 272.! section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration
care according to the patient’s age.
** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a
prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates
advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an “end-of-life planning” seminar every five years. (Death counseling.)
** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify
which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:
“Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not
apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick ‘fix’ to make the plan financially sound for their future.”
Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas
All of the above should give you the point blank
ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts
Dear Policy Patriots -
If You Like Your Employer-Based Health Insurance, Pay Attention: You May Lose It. As National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) President John Goodman recently explained in the Wall Street Journal, “Millions of American workers could discover that they no longer have employer-provided health insurance as ObamaCare is phased in. That’s because employers are discovering that it may be cheaper to pay fines to the government than to insure workers.”
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 9 million Americans may lose their employer coverage and the Chief Actuary of the Medicare program estimates 14 million. The actual number could be much higher. In both cases the net reduction in employer coverage was judged to be small because many uninsured employees would sign up for plans that they are now declining to join.
But here’s what neither agency was prepared for. Newly released documents show that AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere and Verizon have all made internal calculations to determine how much could be saved by a) dropping their employer-provided insurance, b) paying a fine of $2,000 per employee, and c) leaving their employees with the option of buying highly-subsidized insurance in the newly created health-insurance exchange.
AT&T, for example, paid $2.4 billion last year to cover medical costs for its 283,000 active employees. If the company dropped its health plan and paid an annual penalty for each uninsured worker, the fines would total almost $600 million. But that would leave AT&T with a tidy profit of $1.8 billion.
Did You Know that ObamaCare may Increase Unemployment? A new NCPA study shows that ObamaCare’s tax credits for small businesses encourage some firms not to hire more workers. (And it may encourage them to fire some employees.) ObamaCare provides a 50 percent tax credit to companies offering health insurance that have fewer than ten workers who, on average, earn $25,000 a year. However, as firms increase in size, the subsidy shrinks.
NCPA Senior Policy Analyst Pam Villarreal explained, “If a business can make a decision to contract a procedure out or automate it – I believe losing the tax credit will play an important part in the reluctance to hire. This is a strange feature of a law proposed during a deep recession.”
NCPA Fights for You! The National Center for Policy (NCPA) continues to fight against ObamaCare. Policy analysis like the work of John Goodman and Pamela Villarreal wouldn’t be possible without your support. You can check out more NCPA policy solutions here.
Our sensible policy recommendations are only possible with your contributions. Please consider donating to the National Center for Policy Analysis. You can donate online or mail a check to:
National Center for Policy Analysis
P.O. Box 650098
Dallas, Texas 75265-0098
Thanks for your continued support!
Warm regards,
Jeanette Nordstrom
National Center for Policy Analysis
www.ncpa.org
In case you were wondering about the consequences of Obamacare, below is an incomplete list of new Boards, Agencies & Grants it creates.
And guess who will be paying for this? I wonder how many government employees it will take to fill all of these new offices???? Oh yes…they will all have benefits, sick days, vacation days, retirement, etc, etc. Do ya’ think ALL of this will create any bureaucratic waste???? —— Perhaps private companies can do this BETTER…they will watch the number more closely???
Gee—I didn’t see all of the additional IRS people they’re going to hire in this….oh…it must be someplace else.
This is a list of new Boards and Commissions created in the NEW OBAMA HEATH CARE BILL.
1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)
2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section 1003, p. 42)
3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards (Section 1104, p. 71)
4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p. 93)
5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)
6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)
7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section 1311(i), p. 150)
8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)
9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)
10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section 1322(d), p. 177)
11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)
12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)
13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets (Section 1342, p. 233)
14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation (Section 1411, p. 267)
15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility (Section 1412, p. 288)
16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section 1561, p. 370)
17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)
18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 518)
19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions, and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)
20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments (Section 2704, p. 532)
21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section 2705, p. 536)
22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations (Section 2706, p. 538)
23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care (Section 2707, p. 540)
24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)
25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)
26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)
27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)
28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)
29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies (Section 3006(b), p. 668)
30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p. 688)
31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section 3013, p. 693)
32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)
33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 728)
34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)
35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program (Section 3024, p. 752)
36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)
37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)
38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory tests (Section 3113, p. 800)
39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section 3140, p. 850)
40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)
41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 1027)
42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)
43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section 3502, p. 1048)
44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section 3503, p. 1055)
45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section 3504, p. 1061)
46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)
47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids (Section 3506, p. 1088)
48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making (Section 3506, p. 1091)
49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical education (Section 3508, p. 1095)
50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 3509(a), p. 1098)
51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(b), p. 1102)
52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)
53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)
54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 3509(g), p. 1109)
55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Section 4001, p. 1114)
56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)
57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)
58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)
59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section 4101, p. 1135)
60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease management (Section 4102, p. 1147)
61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)
62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)
63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section 4202, p 1188)
64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)
65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)
66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity (Section 4304, p. 1233)
67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p. 1238)
68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)
69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)
70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)
71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)
72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p. 1300)
73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)
74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)
75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208, p. 1310)
76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section 5301, p. 1315)
77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section 5302, p. 1322)
78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303, p. 1325)
79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)
80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section 5305, p. 1334)
81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics (Section 5305, p. 1339)
82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health (Section 5306, p. 1344)
83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309, p. 1354)
84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section 5311(b), p. 1360)
85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes (Section 5313, p. 1364)
86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315, p. 1372)
87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405, p. 1404)
88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)
89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)
90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs (Section 5508(a), p. 1458)
91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)
92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p. 1472)
93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community- based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)
94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)
95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)
96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)
97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 6103(b)(3), p. 1568)
98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)
99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)
100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1619)
101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)
102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Section 6301, p. 1638)
103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e), p. 1656)
104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)
105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section 6703, p. 1776)
106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section 6703, p. 1783)
Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)
107. Grant program to improve management practices and training (Section 6703, p. 1788)
108. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records (Section 6703, p. 1791)
109. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703, p. 1796)
110. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention (Section 6703, p. 1798)
111. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703, p. 1800)
112. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section 6703, p. 1806)
113. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences (Section 6703, p. 1809)
114. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)
115. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)
116. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)
117. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 8002(c), p. 1938)
118. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)
119. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p. 2094)
120. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)
121. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers (Section 10301, p. 2176)
122. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health services (Section 10315, p. 2200)
123. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)
124. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)
125. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section 10326, p. 2242)
126. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)
127. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
128. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
129. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
130. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
131. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
132. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)
133. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs (Section 10408, p 2285)
134. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)
135. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)
136. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2297)
137. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression (Section 10410, p. 2304)
138. Advisory committee for young women’s breast health awareness education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)
139. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)
140. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section 10501, p. 2329)
141. 142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)
142. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section 10501(g), p. 2337)
143. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)
144. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)
145. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)
146. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)
147. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation (Section 10607, p. 2369)
148. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*
149. Office of Indian Men’s Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*
150. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 108)*
151. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790, Section 147, p. 111)*
152. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*
153. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*
154. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*
155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*
156. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 204)*
157. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 220)*
158. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 258)*
*Section 10221, page 2173 of H.R. 3590 deems that S. 1790 shall be deemed as passed with certain amendments.
From – Steve Kim, Republican Nominee for Illinois Attorney General
Health care reform is an important issue that must be pursued in a
bi-partisan manner. The health care bill signed by the President is not
such a piece of legislation.
Furthermore, this health care legislation is in direct violation of the
Commerce Clause as the Constitution has never given the authority to
Congress to mandate an individual to make a purchase of a service or a
good.
One’s life and health and how they choose to live it are not a privilege,
but a right that Congress should never impede upon. The claim that
requiring individuals to purchase automobile liability insurance as
precedent for a requirement to purchase health insurance is not a valid
argument. In the case of automobile liability insurance, a driver’s license is not a right but a privilege that can be taken away and has certain thresholds that must be met to obtain one. In the case of health insurance, this is a personal choice of the individual on what safeguards they choose to have in the case of their own medical care.
Additionally, Congress does not have the constitutional right to regulate non-interstate commerce. While Congress has used its taxing power to fund Social Security and Medicare, never before has it used its commerce power to mandate that an individual person engage in an economic transaction with a private company.
Wall Street Journal – April 2, 2010
If Congress can force you to buy insurance, Article I limits on federal power are a dead letter
The constitutional challenges to ObamaCare have come quickly, and the media are portraying them mostly as hopeless gestures—the political equivalent of Civil War re-enactors. Discussion over: You lost, deal with it.
The press corps never dismissed the legal challenges to the war on terror so easily, but then liberals have long treated property rights and any limits on federal power to regulate commerce as 18th-century anachronisms. In fact, the legal challenges to ObamaCare are serious and carry enormous implications for the future of American liberty.
View Full Image
Associated Press
A pocket sized copy of the U.S. Constitution
.***
The most important legal challenge turns on the “individual mandate”—the new requirement that almost every U.S. citizen must buy government-approved health insurance. Failure to comply will be punished by an annual tax penalty that by 2016 will rise to $750 or 2% of income, whichever is higher. President Obama opposed this kind of coercion as a candidate but has become a convert. He even argued in a September interview that “I absolutely reject that notion” that this tax is a tax, because it is supposedly for your own good.
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and 13 other state AGs—including Louisiana Democrat Buddy Caldwell—claim this is an unprecedented exercise of state power. Never before has Congress required people to buy a private product to qualify as a law-abiding citizen.
As the Congressional Budget Office noted in 1994, “Federal mandates typically apply to people as parties to economic transactions, rather than as members of society.” The only law in the same league is conscription, though in that case the Constitution gives Congress the explicit power to raise a standing army.
Democrats claim the mandate is justified under the Commerce Clause, because health care and health insurance are a form of interstate commerce. They also claim the mandate is constitutional because it is structured as a tax, which is legal under the 16th Amendment. And it is true that the Supreme Court has ruled as recently as 2005, in the homegrown marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress can regulate essentially economic activities that “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce.”
But even in Raich the High Court did not say that the Commerce Clause can justify any federal regulation, and in other modern cases the Court has rebuked Congress for overreaching. In U.S. v. Lopez(1995), the High Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school zone was not economically significant enough to qualify as interstate commerce, while in Morrison (2000) it overturned a law about violence against women on the same grounds.
All human activity arguably has some economic footprint. So if Congress can force Americans to buy a product, the question is what remains of the government of limited and enumerated powers, as provided in Article I. The only remaining restraint on federal power would be the Bill of Rights, though the Founders considered those 10 amendments to be an affirmation of the rights inherent in the rest of the Constitution, not the only restraint on government. If the insurance mandate stands, then why can’t Congress insist that Americans buy GM cars, or that obese Americans eat their vegetables or pay a fat tax penalty?
The mandate did not pose the same constitutional problems when Mitt Romney succeeded in passing one in Massachusetts, because state governments have police powers and often wider plenary authority under their constitutions than does the federal government. Florida’s constitution also has a privacy clause that underscores the strong state interest in opposing Congress’s health-care intrusion.
As for the assertion that the mandate is really a tax, this is an attempt at legal finesse. The mandate is the legal requirement to buy a certain product, while the tax is the means of enforcement. This is not a true income or even excise tax. Congress cannot, merely by invoking a tax, blow up the Framers’ attempt to restrain government under Article I.
The states also have a strong case with their claim that ObamaCare upsets the Constitution’s federalist framework by converting the states into arms of the federal government. The bill requires states to spend billions of dollars to rearrange their health-care markets and vastly expands who can enroll in Medicaid, whether or not states can afford it.
Florida already spends a little over a quarter of its budget on Medicaid, and under ObamaCare that will expand by at least 50% as some 1.3 million new people enroll. Those benefits, and the burden of setting up the new exchanges, will cost Florida $149 million in 2014 and $1.05 billion annually by 2018. The state will either have to cut other priorities or raise taxes. In legal essence, ObamaCare infringes on state sovereignty and unconstitutionally conscripts state officials.
Less potent, at least to our reading, is the challenge on behalf of state laws that bar or exempt their citizens from the mandate. Virginia passed such a law earlier this year, and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is suing on those grounds. But while such efforts serve as healthy political protest, federal laws that are constitutional are supreme under the 10th Amendment, and states can’t “nullify” a Congressional action.
***
Judicial and media liberals are trying to dismiss these challenges as a revanchist attempt to repeal the New Deal, or, worse, as a way to restore the states’s rights of Jim Crow. Modern liberals genuinely believe the federal government can order the states and individuals to do anything as long as it is in pursuit of their larger social agenda. They also want to deter more state Attorneys General from joining these lawsuits.
The AGs should not be deterred, because the truth is that ObamaCare breaks new constitutional ground. Neither the House nor Senate Judiciary Committees held hearings on the law’s constitutionality, and we are not aware of any Justice Department opinion on the matter. Judges have an obligation not to be so cavalier in dismissing claims on behalf of political liberty. Under the Constitution, American courts don’t give advisory opinions. They rule on specific cases, and the states have a good one to make.
Democrats may have been able to trample the rules of the Senate to pass their unpopular bill on a narrow partisan vote, but they shouldn’t be able to trample the Constitution as well.
