Author Robert Goddard, source of “pure ditto-head psychosis” (Kirkus Reviews), to talk health care constitutionality on Gallo in the morning
So the afternoon email message about what’s up on SuperTalk Mississippi arrives, and I learn that Gallo will be talking health care tomorrow:
7:30-Robert Goddard, Mississippi Author-He’s InDaHouse. If health care laws within ObamaCare were judged by Constitutional standards, nothing we’ve seen in any of the proposed Bills would survive the Courts.
Robert Goddard? Mississippi author who knows something about the constitution? He just didn’t ring any bells. So I poke around the web and see–rkgoodard.com. He’s got a business adminsitration degree, works in long term health care, and is working on his second novel. His first? Kirkus Reviews (not source of particularly hard-hitting criticism) says about Upper House Conspiracy:
A diabolical left-wing cabal threatens the American way of life in this brisk, if preposterous, political thriller.
Will O’Brien, an ace investigative reporter whose career was ruined when he fell for a hoax, divides his time between ogling women and muckraking for a sleazy D.C. tabloid. When he discovers a senator dead in a hotel room, all signs point to a sex-induced heart attack, which turns out to have been a murder assisted by adulterated allergy pills. Will’s sleuthing leads him to the sort of conspiracy theory Rush Limbaugh might dream up in an OxyContin haze: a scheme to murder unpopular Democratic senators so their places on the upcoming mid-term ballot can be filled by electable Democratic stalwarts, thus preserving the one-seat Democratic Senate majority that has been blocking the Republican president’s interventionist Middle East policies and Supreme Court nominations. Masterminding the plot are, naturally, a liberal media executive and, needless to say, France, represented by a snooty leftist named Rulon, who favors socialized medicine, progressive income taxes, open immigration, gun control and “pretty much a total submission to decrees of the United Nations”—a program he figures will lead to the disintegration of the United States and a global French hegemony. Will’s theory is dismissed as another hoax by everyone except fetching D.C. detective Zalva Martinez, who helps him delve into the bottomless pit of liberal perfidy while bodies pile up and the bad guys target them for assassination. Throughout, the narrative is well-paced, the dialogue snappy, the mostly gratuitous action scenes exciting and the characters—at least the non-French ones—believable. The plot is pure ditto-head psychosis, but Goddard delivers a workmanlike thriller
Oh, ok. That really explains why he’s on Gallo to talk constitutionality of proposed health care legislation. Let’s all call him up and quiz him about the Commerce Clause. Someone call him about Wickard v. Filburn, and while he’s trying to field that, I’ll call in a question about U.S. v. Lopez.
I’m going to make that a new tag: Ditto-head pyschosis.
I am not familiar with this guy who will be on Gallo’s show, nor do I care what he says or does not say about this constitutional issue. But, there was a good article a few weeks ago discussing this very issue. I think a very good case can be made that forcing people to buy health insurance —the mandates in the proposed bills — does indeed violate the constitution and goes well beyond previous rulings re the commerce clause. Here is the link to the article:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/22/can-congress-force-me-to-buy-health-insurance/
I think this issue is the reason so many liberal dems want the “public option”. If everyone is eventually on a single payer, federal government run plan, then there are no thorny constitutional issues to deal with. It is quite a stretch to come up with a reason for federal involvement in my personal health care decisions here in MS between me and my doctor when the government is not paying for any of my care — my private insurer and I are paying for my care. What part of this involves interstate commerce?
Last time I checked, they made me pay self-employment tax and participate in the social security system, which is partly insurance. I am not permitted to opt out.
I have followed the debate some–but not closely– and have the impression that conservative legal scholars would wish that the Commerce Clause did not empower Congress to do mandate insurance, but acknowledge that the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence did not support their desires. The link
This has even lead to a strange debate on the Volokh Conspiracy blog where one professor contended there was something wrong with another professor saying “It is constitutional because the Supreme Court case law, when analyzed, establishes that it is constitutional”– the first professor thought that the only honest position a professor should take is “I read the constitution, it says [fill in the blank] about constitutionality, and any Supreme Court case that says differently is wrong.” I guess I’m too much of a legal realist to be impressed with that sort of nonsense.
Read the first block quote in the piece you link AFTOL. It contends that the decision to purchase (or not) health insurance is not an economic decision while the decision to grow something in one’s back yard for one’s own consumption is an economic decision? (that’s Wickard, about growing wheat, and the case about which I make a joke in the post). As recently as the medical marijuana case, the court has made it pretty clear this is still the law. Do you really buy this guy’s argument that buying health insurance is a “nonecomomic decision?”
I don’t see a hint of analysis, based on holdings of cases, in the link you give that convinces me there’s a substantial argument against the constitutionality of the health care proposals on the table. I’ve also not seen one elsewhere.
I’m not purporting to know the answer to the constitutional question presented or how the USSC might rule on it —only attempting to show that there are others who take the opposite view of your position who are not kooks (like this Gallo show dude).
Also, IMO, any attempt by the federal government to force me (and other citizens) to purchase health insurance is un-american. This is a decision for me to make, not the government. Such is an affront to freedom and liberty. Most citizens do not want such a mandate from our government. If the federal government can do this, then it can do just about anything. What business does the federal government have with my personal health care decisions between me and my doctors and how I pay for it if the government does not? Zero. Zip. Nada.
But, if the dems are just bound and determined to march off that cliff, then as Kurt Russell’s character “Wyatt Earp” in Tombstone said: “You skin that smoke wagon and we’ll see what happens!”. And then after the inevitable smack down in November 2010, the following might be appropriate:”You gonna do somethin’? Or are you just gonna stand there and bleed?”
Save your breath, NMC. We all know what can’t be fixed ….
This line of argument from Republicans is hard to stomach. The well-established business the government has with your personal choice between you and your doctors is a list too long to detail here. The decisions that have been precluded, that do not even cross our minds anymore because of long-standing government interference or lack-thereof (and therefore profit driven-insurance company interference), killed our personal liberty in choosing healthcare long ago. I cannot get insurance to cover homeopathic remedies, I cannot get insurance to allow my wife to get a VBAC, terminal cancer patients do not have the right to take non-FDA approved experimental medicine, insurance determines which doctors we go to, some states hope to compel young women into taking shots for cervical cancer (not that it is bad but see SCOTUS case Jacobsen about our right to bodily integrity), yada yada yada.
Tell you what, IMO – if I am going to have my personal freedoms crushed (which they already are), I would rather have it done by my elected officials than some slick-suited CEO worried about a bottom line.
I wondered about that guy when i got the Gallo E-mail and am not surprised about what I read here in regard to him..
I don’t have a choice but to pay for federally-mandated disability insurance that’s inadequate for my needs. But you know what? Fine by me– SSI may not do what it needs to do, but it’s better than nothing.
We have “federally mandated” programs that take money from me and use it as a part of programs that require hospitals to hold their emergency rooms open for people who can’t get care otherwise. It’s a stupid system. What you’re saying, AFOTL, honestly, is that being stuck with this stupid system is part of the American Way. I don’t see that– I don’t see why a comprehensive fix to what everyone agrees is a comprehensive problem is impossible.
Is it that conservatives basically don’t want government to work– wish fufillment– a desire to cripple programs so they can’t really function? I hope not. But, really, what we have here is broken. I don’t see constitutional bars to a comprehensive fix, and hope they aren’t dreamed up by opponents.
NMC, its simple. If the government has control over my health care, then it is not a stretch to expect that it will soon thereafter tell me what and how much I can eat, drink, and whether I can smoke my cigar, etc. We are already hearing of more related “sin” taxes on the way (taxes on sugary drinks, taxes on overweight people, etc.). I love freedom. And I don’t want my federal government that involved in my life —or anyone else’s. The government is already too involved in mine and everyone else’s lives, taxing us to death everywhere we turn (death by duckbite). A line has to be drawn somewhere. And for obvious reasons, this appears to be the line for most.
And if government money spent or provided to citizens means that it can impose any mandates upon them (in addition to taxes, which it has the constitutional authority to impose), then how about mandates upon welfare recipients to work (govt. could put them to work doing something productive), stop procreating out of wedlock and at any time while on the govt. dole, stop taking drugs and drinking alcohol while on the government dole? Or is that too intrusive? (That is rhetorical, and yes it is too intrusive IMO). Exactly where do you big government lovers think the line should be drawn?
We can fix health care without the government taking it over and thus taking over much of our personal lives. There are several good ideas out there that provide a starting point: eliminate the current interstate barriers to buying insurance which will provide more favorable options re insurance pools and help lower costs; provide tax credits to those below a certain income level to be used to purchase their own insurance; create private insurance exchanges that will increase competition between insurers to offer reasonably priced options for health insurance (exactly like what the federal employees enjoy –it is not a government run insurance system); allow people to create medical savings accounts that earn interest tax free to be used to cover medical costs within their insurance deductibles —-coupled with a high deductible plan at a low cost, this would be a good combo for most; etc. With regard to the government run plans (Medicare and Medicaid), start cutting deals to buy prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere that are cheaper until the drug manufacturers at home lower their prices and become more competitive (Obama has already cut a bad deal with them). And Obama contends that there is enough fraud and waste in these government run plans to pay for the new health care proposals —well, he needs no Congressional action to take steps to stop such fraud and waste and to collect restitition from those committing fraud —I am skeptical of such claims, but he has said such with a straight face in an address to Congress and the American people, as well as many other times at public appearances. Bottom line: start first with cutting costs, increasing competition, and providing a way for those below a certain level of income to pay for basic coverage. These are the primary areas of consensus.
We have the best health care system in the world. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water to make it better.
We have the best health care system in the world.
A most apt and descriptive capstone statement for the depth, breadth, span, and scope of your knowledge and understanding of America’s health care nonsystem…
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Facts are terrible things to ignore.
Ben, I’ve seen all of the “stats” and information on this that you or anyone else could throw out there to argue to the contrary, but I stand behind my statement. We don’t have people dying in the streets due to lack of health care in the US. We don’t have long lines at the medical providers. We aren’t rationing care. The vast majority of our citizens have health insurance (the purported 45 million “uninsured” is a lie —it includes illegals and many who could afford health insurance, but just don’t want it —and it includes those who qualify for existing programs but, for whatever reasons, choose not to take advantage of them). The others are provided health care through other means. People from other countries come to the US for health care when their home country fails them — these same countries who many like you want to emulate. You can childishly continue to attack the messenger, rather than the message if you want. But, the vast majority are seeing through this BS tactic used by you and others who think they know what is best for the rest of us. We can reform health care without turning it upside down on its head.
Why don’t we start by just reforming the currently existing government programs —Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. Medicare is going broke. IF these can’t be managed properly by the federal government, then why in the hell do we want the government to manage and control the rest of the health care system? Most don’t. IF there are billions of savings within these programs to pay for the new health care bill proposals, then lets get busy implementing these cost saving measures —I’m sure everyone is in favor of cutting fraud and waste. Obama’s administration does not need Congressional action to do what is necessary to attack fraud and waste in the system. Get that done, report back, and then we’ll talk again. And in the meantime, clamp down on illegal immigation in a serious manner and this will trim a lot of unnecessary health care costs (and free up a lot of capacity in ERs across the southwest border).
for those who claim to understand the rest of the world’s healthcare, and then base their judgment of our system upon that knowledge, please take a minute to read this article from the ultra-liberal washington post – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html?nav=hcmodule
NMC, it’s interesting to read that you don’t mind paying for disability insurance which you acknowledge is not worth the money expended for it. I could pose dozens of rhetorical questions after reading that, but I need to get back to work to pay for this involuntary, expensive policy you don’t mind paying.
Here is a REALLY good article in the Wall Street Journal that hits the nail on the head.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574442772173150440.html
The article does a good job at describing why the american public both democrat and republican wont support the public health care option. I would suggest that everyone take some time and read the article.
I read the WSJ piece, Hatfield, and was, to put it mildly, startled.
You really believe that unions generally, and health care unions specifically, are the reasons that Democrats and Republicans won’t support the public health care option? Seriously?
I think I understand some of the reasons and they are closer to the objections AFOTL are expressing– that people, about their own individual health care decisions, are worried about being told what they are going to do.
And with regard to that part of the debate, I’ll warrant that anyone thinking they aren’t “told what they are going to do” has not had the experience of being jerked around by insurance companies about their health care.
I was thinking about linking BlackBear’s WashPost piece and the WSJ piece as sort of pro/con pieces in an afternoon various post, but don’t see a serious argument in the WSJ piece.
“NMC, its simple. If the government has control over my health care, then it is not a stretch to expect that it will soon thereafter tell me what and how much I can eat, drink, and whether I can smoke my cigar, etc.”
So true.
Please, someone explain to me that highway safety, clean water, sewage and garbage pickup, police and fire protection aren’t part of the healthcare debate. ALL of the aforementioned I can make the point that they are part and parcel part of the response to the public’s desire to have improved health and live longer more productive lives. If not, let’s quit paying for them too. I’m just confused as to how such a simple concept as providing primary healthcare has gotten so politicized and is being debated so vigoursly as anything other than that.
And I’m not attacking any one commenter’s views. It’s just my two cents worth on a few select points.
There is already a national health care system in place today. It just happens to only cover emergency medical conditions. It’s called EMTALA and EVERYONE is already , insured or not, legal, illegal alien or just plain aliens of other worlds if they happen to show up at ANY hospital accepting Medicare. Except Federal hospitals and the 2% of the other 4000 nationally that don’t participate. So the argument against “a national health care system” is BS. It’s here and has been since 1986. The only thing currently not covered is PRIMARY healthcare, which is the MOST effective and efficient form. So we just provide primary healthcare in the most expensive environment in the world: the emergency departments across the country. It’s not that enough money isn’t already being spent; it’s just not being spent very smartly.
Rationing. Anyone have a policy limit? Is that not a form of rationing? Anyone have a deductible? That’s rationing is it not? The insurance company is rationing the amount being paid. Don’t agree to pay the deductible and see how much care you get.
Directing their own healthcare. Are you kidding? If you belong to a HMO. Try going outside of it. Have an insurer that has a “preferred provider” nearby. Try going outside of it. Want to go see a physician that doesn’t accept your form of insurance. Let me know how any of these work out for you.
Government intervention. I’ll much prefer someone in government, if they are held accountable, looking after my benefits without a profit motive than an insurance executive or actuary trying to improve the bottom line of their company. And that argument about reforming every other form of government funded health care before attempting to correct primary healthcare coverage…that’s just plain ole BS. Just because we can’t make it all perfect we shouldn’t improve any of it? Surely that’s not the argument, if it is, why do anything at all but sit and bitch until we devise a perfect plan. And as memory serves me, most of Man’s improvements have been the result of its failures, not it’s successes. The success usually was more serendipity than planning and forethought. But I digress.
Yeah, the brown skinned people are breaking the economy by using up all the health care and taking the good jobs. Geezus. XenophobiansRUs is the name of a new civic club I’m thinking of forming. Membership will be in the millions the first day of business. Funny thing is, ain’t but a few native folks left. The rest of us are good ole immigrants. It’s a shame most of us have forgetten so quickly our own boat ride here. ‘Ceptin’ some of the black folks. And even then, they did ride a boat. Maybe we’d all feel better if we just had the Rio Grande rigged up with boats so they could float across rather than walk across. Maybe that would make it all better. Since “they” are already here and all.
My bottom line is this, it doesn’t make economic, legal, moral or ethical sense to continue our current broken system. Healthcare for all is not an economic issue, it’s a moral issue with economic impact.
Either you allow insurers to deny coverage of preexisting conditions or you don’t and you require everyone to have insurance. Otherwise you have adverse selection where healthy people don’t need to buy insurance since they can get full coverage as soom as they need it. Then the premiums would be sky high since only people with medical needs would be in the insurance pool. An insurance mandate is part of a social contract. The people who object to an insurance requirement probably will be the first ones to expect other people to subsidize their medical costs once they have chronic medical needs. That is always the way it goes. Mississippi, one of the most subsidized places in the history of the world, is full of subsidized people who do not want to accept any obligationto assist anyone else. And yet they pretend that their selfishness is moral.
@friend of the law:
“If the government has control over my health care, then it is not a stretch to expect that it will soon thereafter tell me what and how much I can eat, drink, and whether I can smoke my cigar, etc.”
I know what you mean. I’ve traveled to many countries that have socialized medicine or other universal coverage schemes. Have you noticed that in England, France, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Israel, Canada, Japan and Australia they tell you how much you can eat, how much you can drink and whether you can smoke a cigar? We only have control over these choices in the U.S. That’s because we’ve yet to succumb to a public option for the uninsured.
Health insurance is currently AVAILABLE to everyone. Problem is, it’s not AFFORDABLE for everyone. But, it’s putting the cart before the horse to try to make health INSURANCE affordable before making health CARE affordable. There is NO getting around it. The cost of health INSURANCE is merely a reflection of the cost of health CARE. Fix the problem at its root and the rest will follow.
I don’t understand why otherwise intellegent people don’t appreciate the fact that insurance companies are for-profit businesses, NOT charities. Why is it OK for a tort attorney to take 40-50% of a claimants award (sometimes leaving the injured person with insufficient funds to even sustain himself) but it’s NOT ok for an insurance company to make an 8-10% ROE? Why is it OK for Richard Swartz to rake in a qazillion $$ a year for getting someone a rental car that he would have gotten anyway but it’s not ok for the CEO of an insurance company to be awarded a share of the profits that the company would not have made but for the leadership of that CEO? Why is “free enterprise” a good thing for you but not for someone else?
As for HMOs, they aren’t allowed in Mississippi. What we have here are PPOs. PPO = Prefered Provider Organization. The designated providers are “preferred” because they are part of the “organization”. And you don’t have to use them. You can go anywhere you want. You just have to pay the difference in cost between what the preferred provider would have charged and what the doctor you chose decides to charge you. And that is 100% fair. You can’t expect your PPO health plan to reimburse an outside doctor more than it would reimburse a doctor who is part of the organization. That’s why YOU have to pay the difference. But the truth is, the VAST majority of doctors DO particpate in these plans that argument is really moot.
“Health insurance is currently AVAILABLE to everyone.”
False. I’ve had many patients who have been turned down for coverage by every company they applied to.
Adding to Dr. X’s comment – from what I remember, a child born on Medicaid with a long-term illness or other severe affliction is uninsurable in our current system and are stuck with Medicaid – my wife and I held our breath with our first child praying for health and insurability.
Just because they’ve been turned down by “every company they applied to” does not mean that coverage is unavailable. They just haven’t applied to the right companies yet. Anything and everything is insurable….for a price. As for children born with disabling conditions, I have yet to see one that couldn’t get the VERY BEST health care, regardless of the condition or regardless of their ability to pay for care. Furthermore, I have no problem AT ALL with the idea of the government subsidizing health care and/or research for the types of problems you are talking about (birth defects, genetic diseases, etc.) and I’d gladly pay my fair share of a tax to be used for this purpose. Same thing for Veteran’s benefits. But, when it comes to the Govt deciding what kind of coverage I am going to have in order to force me to subsidize the cost of basic health care for common working people, THAT’s a different story. Regardless of that though, the point of my comment is that, in order to make health care insurance affordable (and available) for more people, the underlying COST of health care had to be reduced. Health insurance companies can not do that. It’s GOT to start with tort reform. There simply IS no other way to do it.
OOOH, Common working people!!! Can’t have that!!!