Healthcare Hypocricy?

[SubGod22]

Obamacare Marches On

For the second time this month, Congress has passed a short-term continuing resolution and avoid a government shutdown. And for the second time, this was accomplished at the cost of dropping a provision that would have prevented the use of government funds to implement Obamacare. It raises the question, then, of just how committed the Republican leadership really is to killing Obamacare.

It is worth remembering that House Republicans did not include the cutoff in health-care funding as part of their original CR proposal. It was added as an amendment after a mini-rebellion by House conservatives. And the leadership was quick to jettison it at the first sign of Democratic objection. Now it appears that House Republican leaders have blinked yet again.

Apparently it is more important to keep the government open than to stand up against the most massive threat to limited government and individual liberty in recent history

In fact, one wonders what the Republican leadership is doing to stop Obamacare. Sure, they took a vote to repeal it. But since there was no chance that a repeal bill could get through the Senate and past a presidential veto, the vote was mostly symbolic. Since then, what have Republicans done? There was another vote calling for various committees to propose an alternative health-care reform. Where is it? Where are the votes on proposals to kill some of the more unpopular aspects of the health-care law? What about the individual mandate? The employer mandate? The new taxes? What about CLASS Act, the long-term care program? Even Secretary Sebelius says that it won't work as currently structured. Why has there been no vote to repeal that?

Cutting off funding for Obamacare now is all the more important because the administration is pushing full speed ahead on implementation. And the sad fact is that Obama is all too often being aided by Republicans.

The Republican leadership will undoubtedly claim that the CR is a good deal, because it cuts another $6 billion in spending in exchange for keeping the government open for another three weeks. This keeps Republicans on track toward their goal of trimming this year's $3.46 trillion federal budget by $61 billion. It boldly defunds the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission and the Labor Department's Career Pathways Innovation Fund.

But Obamacare is not just another bill. It fundamentally alters not just the U.S. health-care system but the entire relationship between the government and the American people. Should we really celebrate a Congress that kills the Lincoln Bicentennial but preserves Obamacare?

[SubGod22]

The Case Against President Obama's Health Care Reform: A Primer for Non Lawyers

Multiple challenges to President Obama's health care reform are percolating through the federal courts. Soon the Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on perhaps the most important question of the post–New Deal era: Are there any remaining limits on the breadth and scope of federal power?

Reinforced by decades of Court decisions that have gutted the Framers' original conception of limited government, the Obama administration has embraced an unprecedented expansion of centralized control. This paper addresses the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which includes a mandate that individuals either purchase a government-prescribed health insurance policy or pay a penalty.

The Department of Health and Human Services has asserted three constitutional provisions as sources of authority for the mandate — the Taxing Power, the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Each of those purported sources is deficient.

First, the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax. Even if the penalty were a tax, it would fail the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes. Second, the power to regulate interstate commerce extends only to economic activities; it does not permit Congress to compel such activities in order to regulate them. Third, the mandate is not necessary; indeed, it is merely a means to circumvent problems that would not exist if not for PPACA itself. Nor is the mandate proper; it cannot be reconciled with the Framers' original design for a limited federal government of enumerated powers.

An essential aspect of liberty is the freedom not to participate. PPACA's directive that Americans buy an unwanted product from a private company debases individual liberty. And it's unconstitutional.

[1979Shocker]

High Court Won't Fast- Track Health Care Suit

(CN) - The Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up an appeal over health care reform before a federal appeals court can rule on the case.
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli had appealed to the high court in February by invoking Rule 11, a seldom-successful clause that permits immediate review of federal rulings.

[engrshock]

[url=http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12972]

An essential aspect of liberty is the freedom not to participate. PPACA's directive that Americans buy an unwanted product from a private company debases individual liberty. And it's unconstitutional.

[/quote]

The problem I have with the argument that there needs to be the "freedom to not particpate" is that people do not have health care now and should something happen they will get the care and treatment needed at an emergency room and if they cannot pay (which many cannot) then the rest of us get to pay for them.

Why can't I be free to not pay the healthcare costs of the idiots without healthcare now? Further, with the new workman's comp law, illegal aliens who are hurt while employed by a company in Kansas will no longer be covered by workman's comp. The cost of those treated at emergency rooms will just be passed on to the rest of us instead of employers who are benefiting from cheap labor.

[SubGod22]

Why am I not surprised?... Restaurants, Cafes in Pelosi's District Eat Up Health Care Law Waivers

But the latest list quickly raised questions among Republicans. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement that the waivers are a "tacit admission that the health care law is fundamentally flawed."

"Despite the president's promise, it appears that just because you like your health care plan does not mean that the administration will allow you to keep it," Upton said.

Newly seated Nevada Sen. Dean Heller also said the Nevada waiver exposes the law's flaws. "It is clear that the unique health care needs of individual states were not taken into consideration, and this is why Obamacare will not work for Nevada," he said in a statement.

[SubGod22]

Federal Judges Raise Questions About ObamaCare Mandate

The Obama administration was faced with the difficult task of convincing at least two of the three federal judges hearing an appeal to overturn a January ruling invalidating the entire heath care law.

“Clearly, we believe the most difficult issue in the case is the individual mandate,” Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Joel Dubina announced at the outset. Indeed, most of the argument time focused on whether the law’s requirement for nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance is constitutional.

Dubina also noted that part of the difficulty of determining the legal viability of the Affordable Care Act is that the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on the application of the Commerce Clause that directly matches up with what Congress passed last year.

“If we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congress’s power left?" Dubina asked.

[SB Shock]

The Health Care Mandate’s Big Win in the Sixth Circuit

On Wednesday, the Obama Administration won its first Court of Appeals battle over the constitutionality of the health care mandate. A divided three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit held that Congress has the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

I was wondering the makeup of the 3 panel judge - 2 Republican and Democrate.

The big news is Sutton’s vote to uphold the law. This is the first time in this protracted battle that voting on the constitutionality of health care did not follow party lines. And Judge Sutton is no ordinary Republican: He is a former law clerk for Antonin Scalia and a George W. Bush appointee, far enough to the right that 41 Senators voted against his confirmation. (He was the only exception to the partisan pattern of health care decisions. Martin is a Democrat; Graham is a Republican.)

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/91085/health-care-mandate-sixth-circuit

[RoyalShock]

Sigh.

:ohno:

[SubGod22]

Ohio Voters to Decide on Opting Out of Health Care Law

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Voters will get the chance to decide whether Ohio can opt out of the national health care overhaul after the state's top election official said Tuesday that opponents of the federal law have enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Secretary of State Jon Husted determined that supporters of the amendment, which would prohibit Ohio from participating in the federal Affordable Care Act, had gathered 427,000 valid signatures. They had submitted more than 546,000 and needed roughly 358,000 of them validated to make it on to the ballot.

The amendment will find itself on the ballot alongside a measure to repeal a contentious new collective bargaining law. Advocates expect that the two measures will drive people to the polls, which are typically under-visited in off-year elections.

Not sure how this will play out, but it's interesting.

I still can't figure out how Obamacare is constitutional. The Supreme Court will deal with that at some point.

[SubGod22]

Health 'Care' or Just Insanity?

[wufan]

Health 'Care' or Just Insanity?

Nice quick read. It is very true. A few more (less poetic) examples:

5 minutes with a general surgeon 10 years ago; $190.00
An X-ray and a consultation with an oral surgeon; $500.00
Superglue on my son's chin in the ER; $820.00

[ShockBand]

So who then gets the lion's share of that inflated fee structure? And how do we as health care consumers put market pressure on these services? I ask because usually we don't worry about the cost of our medical services until we get the bill. Should health care providers be required to post a menu of fees?

If we don't get the cost of health care under control, it will be the factor thats eats us alive in years to come.

Good article find, Sub.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

I called several doctors offices to find out the cost of getting an appointment to get a test for Strep done. Of the 5 i called, not one would tell me how much an entry level appointment cost, only one would tell me how much the strep test cost, and 4 of the 5 said it depended on which insurance I had.

[SubGod22]

In ongoing legal battles....U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law. I'm sure as more info comes in, the link will be updated with new info.

[SubGod22]

'Obamacare' Closer to Supreme Court Review After Administration Declines to Appeal Latest Ruling

The Obama administration has decided not to ask a federal appeals court in Atlanta for further review of a ruling striking down the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul.

The administration's decision makes it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear a case on the health care overhaul in the court's term starting next month, and render its verdict on the law in the midst of the 2012 presidential election campaign.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler disclosed the administration's decision. She declined to elaborate on next moves

In arguments leading up to the appeals court decision in Atlanta, the Obama administration said the legislative branch was using a "quintessential" power -- its constitutional ability to regulate interstate commerce, including the health care industry -- when it passed the overhaul law. Administration officials said at the time they were confident the 11th Circuit ruling would not stand.

In that August ruling, Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull said that lawmakers cannot require residents to "enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die."

In a lengthy dissent, Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus accused the majority of ignoring the "undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries." He wrote that Congress generally has the constitutional authority to create rules regulating large areas of the national economy

I think that last part is the problem. It's grown far beyond what it was ever supposed to be and the courts continue to let it happen.