Archive for the 'Health Care' Category
Conservatives have the same problem as DC’s garrison in Afghanistan, and that’s enemies claiming they’re on your side. When you least expect it – Wham! – you’ve been back-sided.
Previously, we’ve talked about Neocons posing as conservatives while pushing their neo-imperial agenda of open borders and endless war. One of the worst is Andrew Sullivan, who also advocates same-sex “marriage” as part of what he calls a “conservative” platform – see here and here, for example.
So it should surprise no one that the big-government Neocons are now pushing for socialized medicine. In a New York Times op-ed entitled, Why Obamacare is a Conservative’s Dream, J.D. Kleinke of the American Enterprise Institute – the Death Star of Neoconservatism – argues conservatives should embrace Obamacare. After all, says Kleinke, government economists who call themselves “conservative” approve of Mr. Obama’s ambitious plan:
The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system – principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton plan in the early 1990s.
The real problem with the health care plan – for Mr. Romney and the Republicans in general – is that political credit for it goes to Mr. Obama. Now, Mr. Romney is in a terrible fix trying to spin his way out of this paradox and tear down something he knows is right – something for which he ought to be taking great political credit of his own.
It’s bad enough we have to fight the overt leftists without having to watch our backs from infiltrators claiming to be on our side. Of course, the best defense against being fooled by these ideological hucksters is to know what we believe in and why.
“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government,” Perry said in a statement Monday. He sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announcing his opposition to the law.
Perry joins a growing list of GOP governors who say they won’t implement the two provisions, including Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Rick Scott of Florida and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
The federal government, however, will implement the health insurance exchanges for the states if they don’t do so.
There is too much reaction to the Obamacare ruling to cover it all so I’m just going to start this links thread. I will be adding many more links as time goes on. I encourage our readers to add interesting links in the comment section, and my fellow bloggers to add links to the post.
Was Roberts bullied into changing his vote? I don’t know if he was “bullied,” but the decision sure does look like it took politics into consideration.
There is much discussion on what Roberts legal mental gymnastics means for the Commerce Clause. See Slate.
Professor Knippenberg at First Things.
James Antle on “John Roberts’ Betrayal”
Here is Antle’s Obamacare Wrap-up.
Rod Dreher doesn’t get what conservatives are so upset about. I don’t get why The American Conservative doesn’t change it’s name.
And speaking of the misnamed American Conservative, Scott McConnell thinks the SCOTUS decision was just dandy.
And still more Antle.
Doug Bandow: Did Romney surrender?
Pat Buchanan on the scoundrel Roberts.
Many more to come…
The Supreme Court Has Spoken
|by Darrell L. Castle
The Supreme Court has announced its ruling in regard to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly known as Obamacare. My purpose in this article is to point out that those of us in the Constitution Party endeavor to return America to the rule of law as expressed in the US Constitution. That’s why we carry the name Constitution Party. We also seek to restore a concept fundamental to Western Civilization and that is the understanding between government and citizens that the law applies equally to all. The question for us then is where do we go from here in furtherance of our goals.
From a negative standpoint calling Obamacare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is like calling a new intercontinental ballistic missile the Peacekeeper. The system this act purports to establish is certainly not affordable, at least not by those who will actually pay for it, and it doesn’t offer much patient protection either. The majority opinion takes some interesting twists and turns to arrive at who will pay. For example how do you justify a fine for being unwilling to buy health insurance—just redefine the fine into a tax and everything is OK.
In arriving at its justification for placing its stamp of approval on Obamacare the majority stated “It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income but choose to go without health insurance.” “Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.” From that statement, one can conclude that it will be those among the 50 per cent who actually pay income taxes and who choose not to buy the insurance, that will be paying the fine, or tax. This twisted logic appears to be a legal fiction created by the Court to escape the failure of the Commerce Clause to expand enough to cover Obamacare.
Taking a Stand for Freedom
Atlanta, GA – June 28th, 2012- “Not if we have anything to say about it!” said Ricardo Davis, Chairman of the Constitution Party of Georgia. That’s Davis’ reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that has stunned and angered many Americans – that the widely unpopular legislation known as Obamacare is constitutional. “Our nation has taken another step downward in our devolution toward socialism,” Davis said, adding that he is “saddened” by the ruling.
Even more stunning perhaps is that the majority opinion of the 5-4 ruling was written by a member of the court who had been expected to vote against President Obama’s signature health care bill: Chief Justice John Roberts. In it, the court upheld Obamacare’s most controversial provision, the so-called individual mandate, which forces most taxpayers to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The court ruled the mandate is a tax, falls within the powers of Congress and therefore is constitutional. By ruling the mandate is a tax the court sidestepped the controversial issue of whether Congress could impose it under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
But Davis praised the four dissenters on the high court, including Justice Anthony Kennedy, who unexpectedly voted with conservatives Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Their opinion, Davis said, “really brought the salient constitutional issues squarely into view.”
So all you state attornies general who challenged Obamacare, now that the Supreme Court has gone against you what is your next move? Do you just roll over and take it, or do you put your money (actions) where your mouth is and seek to nullify this abomination in your state? The ball is in your court.
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Ron Paul issued the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.
“Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”
The clues for today’s Supreme Court decision were actually found in the immigration and campaign finance decisions made by the court a few days ago. This is very much a nationalistic Supreme Court. This will be the Roberts Court’s legacy. It does not like the states going off to try and decide policy on its own. Thus it tells Montana it cannot write its own campaign finance laws; it tells Arizona it can’t write it’s own immigration laws and tells the states who filed suit against individual mandate sorry, the mandate is a tax and Congress can tax. End of discussion.
Like immigration, the issue goes back to Congress, which as we are reading in a very good article on TAC by Leo Linbeck III, is utterly disfunctional right now, which is why the states have entered the realm of policy to decide on its own because they are tired of waiting.
The mandate is out there as “freedom” issue for those wishing to pursue it. But many Republicans who once supported the mandate (before being against it) may just decide to drop the issue. Will Romney pick it up? Given that he shares a similar background as Roberts as pro-big business “conservative”, me thinks he won’t make the health care issue all that important to his campaign. Big business has wanted the politicians to do something about health care costs (which Romney tried to do in Massachusetts)for a long time and the mandate which forces persons to have health insurance was a way be able to steer business to them. Why change it? And given insurance company donations to the Romney campaign, I doubt if he will.
Hey mainstream conservatives and Bushbots, how’s that John Roberts appointment that y’all were so crazy about looking to you now?
If a guy has a cryptic and non-controversial record, he has a cryptic and non-controversial record for a reason. Because he’s cryptic and non-controversial.
When are you people ever gonna learn? (O’Connor, Souter, etc. etc. etc.) You should insist on a controversial track record that gives you reasonable certainty about how that judge is going to think/rule or you should withhold your support.
And now for the shocker of the century:
The majority writes: “We find that the minimum coverage provision is a valid exercise of legislative power by Congress under the Commerce Clause and therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.” Key passage:
By regulating the practice of self-insuring for the cost of health care delivery, the minimum coverage provision is facially constitutional under the Commerce Clause for two independent reasons. First, the provision regulates economic activity that Congress had a rational basis to believe has substantial effects on interstate commerce. In addition, Congress had a rational basis to believe that the provision was essential to its larger economic scheme reforming the interstate markets in health care and health insurance.
Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of the judges who voted to uphold the act, clerked for Scalia, and was nominated by George W. Bush.
Actually, this is two shockers in one! Not only has the Commerce Clause been used ONCE AGAIN to grant the central government powers never contemplated by the people, a Bush-appointed judge sided with Obama.
Still think electing Republicans makes any difference?
I can’t resist quoting my blog post from last September, on a court ruling that said the Commerce Clause gave DC final say on gun laws:
I mean really — you ask the Feds how much power they have over you and the answer is “lots!” That’s a surprise? And they base their authority on the commerce clause, which lovers of big government have turned into Silly Putty. Yawwwn. …
Guess what will happen when Obamacare faces the exact same challenge? Think the commerce clause can be stretched to cover that, too?
Anyone out there care to make a little bet?
From the NY Times:
Missouri voters on Tuesday easily approved a measure aimed at nullifying the new federal health care law, becoming the first state in the nation where ordinary people made known their dismay over the issue at the ballot box.
…“This really wasn’t an effort to poke the president in the eye,” said State Senator Jim Lembke, a Republican. “First and foremost, this was about defining the role of state government and the role of federal government. Whether it’s here in Missouri with health care or in Arizona with illegal immigration, the states are going to get together on this now.”
This is a perfect microcosm for how the right and left view how a constitutional republic should work. Opponents of Obamacare took to the appropriate venue and spoke at the ballot box. And what instrument do proponents of Obamacare hope to utilize to thwart the will of the good people of Missouri? Where will they wage their battle?
“While we’re disappointed that Missourians didn’t vote against this, we think the courts will ultimately decide it,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association.
Posted under Health Care
I found this piece from the liberal website The American Prospect interesting. Apparently one way around the individual mandate of the new health care law is basically join religious organization and groups like the mentioned. A very interesting bit of resistance against the individual mandate of both the government and the insurance companies.
Here are some other articles for your consideration:
Chuck Baldwin’s latest: “Army Report says Christians Threaten U.S. Foreign Policy.”
From the American Spectator: “How Romney Could Kill the ObamaCare Repeal Movement.”
J.J. Jackson’s latest at Liberty Reborn.com: “What I Fear I am not Afraid to Speak Of”
Clyde Wilson over at Chronicles: “On Being America’s Red-Headed Stepchild.”
Justin Raimondo’s “Populism, Left and Right” over at Antiwar.com
Michael Boldin at Lew Rockwell.com “We Refuse!”
And Pat Buchanan’s latest over at TAC: “The Tea Party Tribe.”
You have these fourteen states attorneys general saying that they want to have the court overturn the recently passed health care law. I must say, I was just with my grand kids at Fort Sumter, and the notion of nullification made me extremely nervous because it was, of course, the first step toward the Civil War. But that is going to be a huge question before the court this fall…
The assumption is that ANY resistance to Federal power-grabs forces the central government to hammer uncooperative subjects. For their own good, of course. And it’s the victims’ fault when the government resorts to violence.
Cokie sounds like one of the Manson women defending her psychopathic idol.
Sorry for all the Frum posts, but I have been following this story pretty closely and stumbling on some good stuff that I want to pass along.
First, our friend Tom Piatak has weighed in on the matter at Chronicles.
Salon has the story here. As expected they are sympathetic with Frum’s centrist attacks on the GOP right, but they also note the irony of the former purger getting purged.
but that kind of bombast — “war is a great clarifier” — sure doesn’t look great in retrospect. Frum and his allies weren’t just trying to drum some unsavory types out of the movement. They were also working at making it impossible for a Republican to oppose the party line on the crucial issue of the day — an issue on which they turned out to be disastrously wrong themselves.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Now is where it gets really interesting. Frum insinuated to Politico that his firing was related to donor pressure. This had seemed to be the universal assumption.
Charles Murray, also an AEI scholar, objects to this view at the National Review Online blog and defends the climate of intellectual freedom at AEI. He suggest Frum was fired because he never actually bothered to show up at AEI.
Frum responds defending his claim that the firing was politically motivated. Frum wonders if AEI was holding back in the health care debate for fear of misstepping.
Bruce Bartlett, who was also fired from his job at a conservative think tank for straying from the party line although his dissent was from the right, weighs in here. (For whatever reason [bitterness perhaps?] Bartlett is now a Frumesque centrist himself.)
And last but not least, our friend Daniel McCarthy weighs in at AmConMag. Dan points out, as did Bartlett, that mandating insurance coverage was actually one of those ”conservative” counter-proposals that movement “conservatives” often trot out when they are trying to offer up some liberalism light ”free market” alternative to whatever outright socialist proposal the Dems are pimping at the moment.
I don’t think “conservative” think tanks requiring strict adherence to GOP or movement “conservative” orthodoxy is necessarily a good thing, but my concern would be with them purging dissenters to their right. That the moderate and neoconish AEI felt the need to purge Frum for deviating to the left says something about how far left he has drifted.
Addendum: Here is Richard Spencer’s take.
we didn’t play ball enough with the Democrats. No. I’m not kidding. That really is what he is arguing here. Because this plan has “conservative” DNA you see.
The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
Actually, it does have a “broad family resemblance” to RomneyCare, which is bankrupting Massachusetts and is a good reason why RINO Mitt should never get within 100 miles of the White House. And it may well “build on ideas” developed at the Heritage Foundation, but that is an indictment of the Heritage Foundation which has never been know for it’s stalwart constitutionalism.
And oh bye the way, according to Frum the GOP should not now run on repealing this abomination. He may be somewhat right about the politics, but as usual he cast principle totally aside.
Addendum: Doug Bandow, one of the good guys at AmSpec, comments on the Frum article here.
Posted under Health Care
Call your Congressman and pray.
Addendum: The deed is done. If any of you has a Congressman who voted for this abomination, please ask them what part of Article 1 section 8 authorizes this?
This revelation from Big Government should make your flesh crawl:
To achieve the goal of a universal, single-payer health system, the White House must secure the power it needs by amending the Social Security Act to transfer pivotal controls from Congress to the executive branch. This transfer of power would ultimately give the President and the majority party, in this case the radical left Obama White House and Pelosi-Reid led progressive Democrats, the authority to frame and manipulate new policy, coverage options, and reimbursements, ultimately reshaping the future US health care system into a something unrecognizable in this country.
The deliberate setup for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known twin bills called “MedPAC Reform of 2009” are waiting in the wings. The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch. These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn’t pass the House or Senate, respectively. Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system.
When conservatives — and some principled liberals — objected to Obama’s expansion of Bush’s unconstitutional assault on habeas corpus, the government supremacists and pro-war, any war crowd howled that we were undermining our overlord’s tireless efforts to protect us:
There are preconditions to both security and liberty, and thus Glenn Greenwald’s absolutism is both wrong and immoral — and certainly not conservative. (In fact, Greenwald and his allies are not unlike the extremists of France in 1792 who took absolute liberté to its ultimate solution of the gallows.) Not only do strong national instutions, [sic] in the case of a vigorous executive, serve the interests of basic survival, but they are even more fundamental to the classical political philosophy of constitutional governement. [sic]
And if the Democrats do cede authority to regulate health care to the Executive branch, it’ll be a snap to defend the action as essential to “security” — in fact, Obama and his supporters have already framed health care as essential to the nation’s “economic security”:
President Obama cites costs as a major reason to revamp the health care system. Lawmakers this month will begin marrying separate health care bills approved last year by the House and Senate.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., an architect of the Senate health bill, said the report shows costs are rising as wages decline. “Health reform is not only about ensuring health care security for more Americans, it is also about ensuring economic security,” he said.
Congratulations, Neocons — you’ve ushered in American socialism. In the name of national security, you’ve terrified Americans into submitting to a Chief Executive who can overrule Constitutional constraints on his power. Heckuva job.