Archive for category Supreme Court

If Obamacare Is So Good, Why Are So Many Asking For Waivers

The Democrat rulers who have singularly more knowledge than all of us who in our daily decisions compose the free market have foisted another unsustainable entitlement program upon us, Obamacare. It was touted as providing medical care to all, providing better access and free provider choice and at the same time reducing the aggregate costs of medical care.

Of course, it has done none of that. But it has added another Trillion dollar entitlement program that our grandchildren are going to be paying for with the meager compensation they receive from their Chinese employers.

It has also supplied the rulers with another discretionary plumb with which to grant waivers from its 2000 pages of rules and regulations. Until now, these waivers have been granted or denied on the basis of political pull. So the unions regularly get waivers as do those political organizations like AARP who supported Omabacare. But those gutsy or principled enough to oppose the Obamacare leviathan are denied these plumbs.

Part of the financial farce of the legislation was to expand Medicaid enrollment by 25% and push the costs of that expanded welfare onto the states, so the costs would not count against the financial costs charged against the unsustainable program. Apparently if you add a new unsustainable entitlement to an existing almost bankrupt entitlement, you get Obama’s dependent but bankrupt society.

Well the states are starting to squawk. Governor Mitch Daniels’ WSJ op-ed, An Obamacare Appeal From the States, sets it out pretty well. He correctly points out that the law is a massive mistake amplifying the big drivers of over consumption and excessive pricing. “Why not, it’s free? Reimbursement…and, The more I do, the more I get. Provider payments.

Daniels hopes for legislative repeal or judicial strike down of the monstrosity but as the governor of a state cannot rely on that. He and 20 other governors have written to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting relief from some of the law’s worst strictures. He correctly points out that the law not only increases Medicaid costs by 25% but also commandeers the states’ employees to enforce the new law with insurance exchanges and police powers. If a state refuses, the federal government will operate the exchange within the state. Thus opening Pandora’s box!

Daniels has written Sebelius conditioning Indiana’s participation of several conditions:
• Flexibility in deciding which insurers offer insurance in the state.
• Freedom of choice in coverage, thus not forcing only single costly policies.
• Elimination of discrimination against consumer driven plans, like HSAs.
• Freedom to move Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchanges.
• Reimbursement of the full costs of Indiana’s administration of the law.
• An independent projection of expected enrollment, given the law’s incentives to employers to off load employee insurance programs.

Daniels recognizes the chances are slim to none that Sebelius will grant this effective rewrite of the legislation. But he argues that she should recognize that the paternalistic, command-control nature of the legislation should be recognized as a failure. This because one small part of it, the high-risk preexisting condition pools, have been a failure. A majority of the states refused to participate in these pools, leaving the task to the Feds. Sebelius failed miserably at it with costs far above projections used to get the law passed. Daniels called it a “fiasco.”

Let’s pray that the Supreme Court accepts certiorari on an expedited basis from the various lower court Obamacare cases. Mitch Daniel’s op-ed only scratches the surface of all the wasted economic activity—public and private—attendant to this fiasco that is Obamacare.

No Comments

Justices Ignoring the Constitution

What to do about judicial legislation? About justices that ignore the constitution? Doug Bandow posted and excellent article in American Spectator, Does the Constitution Mean Anything? He recites the circumstances of the drafting and ratification of the establishment document, namely the restriction of the type of unlimited powers exercised by the king and parliament against the colonies and the people. It was natural then that the founders drafted a structure dividing government between branches, each with its own domain, and each having a check on the others so that power was in fact divided. Thus a balanced central government was created. But not one of general police powers. No, the federal government was one of limited powers, specifically enumerated limited powers. The general power governments were the states. Thus the states possessed the so-call “police power.” The constitution specifically reserves powers not delegated by it to the federal government, to the states or the people.

Realizing that changes may later be needed, the founding fathers provided for a couple of different processes for amending the constitution. There have been 27 amendments to the document none conferring additional power on the central government.

Bandow goes over the various theories by which judges and justices try to get around this basic governing document which they have foresworn to defend and uphold. Theories of “living constitution,” or “dynamic constitution” or “time is right” for changes that the founders would have drafted if they thought of them, are all part of the judicial tap dance used to deny the validity of the constitution.

He suggests that it is not judicial “activism” that is the sin: ”Originalists” of varying stripes have tended to criticize judicial “activism,” but activism is not the problem. Lack of fidelity to the Constitution is the problem.”

He correctly analyses the current constitutional issues on the Obamacare insurance mandate and then posits the real value of his post, a potential solution to recalcitrant judges short of impeachment, itself a non-remedy.

“GIVEN THE TENDENCY of judges to ignore law and constitution, one helpful fix would be to end life tenure for justices. Intended to protect judicial independence, this provision creates a dangerous and disconnected elite that will always be tempted to overstep its role. Better to appoint judges for a term, perhaps ten years. Rotation in office would still insulate jurists from political passions while limiting the concentration and abuse of power by the judiciary. Errant jurists would naturally leave the bench rather than forever wield unconstrained power — becoming liberal saints along the way.”

While this is perhaps not the only solution to the problem, it seems a sensible one. Perhaps others will be constructed, but this at least causes us to ponder the problem and think about potential solutions.

The issue is important for, “If constitutional protections are but formless inkblots, then no American is truly safe from his or her government.”

1 Comment

A Vet Slams Kagan’s Treatment of Military at Harvard

Capt. Pete Hegseth Testifies about Kegan’s intellectual, moral and patriotic dishonesty. She is Hussein Obama’s perfect soulmaate!

No Comments