Rep. Linville
The Democrats directed the Office of Financial Management to strip McKenna’s office from an exemption on state spending for certain contracts for hiring outside legal help and other work when needed.
Today, Linville called me to tell me the exemption is going to be reinstated, but with new provisions.
“The main thing is we don’t want to interrupt how he is doing his business in general,” Linville siad. “This isn’t about the attorney general, this is about a decision he made that doesn’t have legislative or gubernatorial support.”
The new exemption would allow McKenna’s office the ability to spend when necessary, but it would require his office to request approval from Gov. Chris Gregoire’s administration to pursue any kind of legal action based on healthcare reform.
“I feel perfectly comfortable with that,” Linville said. “Again, It’s not about the attorney general, it’s about a specific action the attorney general took. There are other things he’s done that I think we wouldn’t probably have a problem.”
To follow up, I also asked Rep. Linville about her thoughts on the constitutional argument taking place about the legislation.
“Interstate commerce has been defined very broadly,” she said.
She also said she saw on the news that at least one attorney general filing suit is using the legal battle as part of his campaign fundraising efforts.
“I don’t know if there is a serious attempt, or a political attempt,” she said. “I would be more comfortable if it was serious and he discussed it with the governor.
“I think this state will benefit from this law that was passed and I don’t want to single ourselves out,” she said, in terms of losing out on reimbursements for senior’s prescription drug costs, the ban on preventing coverage due to pre-existing conditions and more.
But can the state afford the legislation, especially newly enrolled Medicaid patients?
“Actually for me I couldn’t specifically answer that. It’s a concern that we be able to find the matching funds to afford this, on the other hand we’re putting together a full task force in the interim to examine all aspects of healthcare reform,” she said.
The taskforce will assess what the cost will be to the state “and how we manage that cost and what the benefits are going to be.”
“It’s a very complicated bill and we’re leaving it up to our healthcare committee to map out what questions are going to be asked,” she said.
March 26th, 2010 at 12:36 PM
The AG as an elected position, is accountable to the people directly.
Legislature and the Governor, would like to be the AG’s boss, but this is not the pecking order.
I wonder what there is to fear, in obtaining a Constitutional certification from the Courts.
Maybe the Governor and Legislature would cut ff the Courts funding.
Maybe the legislature would be better off concentrating on cutting their own spending, rather than wasting time with the AG activities.
When Legislature fears the Courts, I fear the Legislature.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Sad, very sad. Carving out what the AG can or cannot do on behalf of the citizens who elected them without the “permission” of the Governor or legislature is a precedent that I’m surprised Democrats are willing to set.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:34 PM
I’m afraid these are not the same old democrats. They’ve been taken over by progressives wanting control of just about everything. Too bad.
March 26th, 2010 at 2:10 PM
Excellent job by our representatives attempting to reign in our AG who’s gone rogue.
His political posturing is costing taxpayers money.
Mr. Mckenna claims that part of the reason he chose to, not at the very least discuss joining the lawsuit with the GOVERNOR OF THE STATE HE”S SUING ON BEHALF OF is some sort of time constraints. He was in a BIG BIG hurry, he lamented.
I believe this big big hurry he was in must have also impaired his professional judgement in regards to the merits of the case. For several reasons but one of the most interesting one’s is being pointed out by
Sen Wyden of Oregon..
“Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don’t have to abide by it — just set up your own plan.
It’s called the “Empowering States to be Innovative” amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system — with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option — provided that, as Wyden puts it, “they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill.”
“Why don’t you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?” the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. “Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?”
March 26th, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Here’s a quality editorial the Seattle Times just put out: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2011453136_edit28mckenna.html
March 26th, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Usually, opinion pieces are fact-based. I’m kind of surprised the writer would ignore the fact that the Survey USA Poll results were actually within the margin of error.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a9f83ae8-c742-4ffa-ba40-846cfe4e73f0
Of course, I’m not sure one weird aspect of an opinion piece invalids the totality, but they didn’t even mention it, which I do find odd. I’m not, of course, an editorialist, but I am familiar with the process.
March 26th, 2010 at 5:11 PM
This is great. Our resident state and constitutional scholars are offended that politicians have allowed politics to infect their actions and interfere with the lofty pursuits of the state AG.
But of course, when the AG walked across Budd Inlet and, after extensive discussions with other elected leaders, decided to pit Washington state against the US congress, his was an act above politics.
Do not fear, Doug. There are plenty of other adroits out there to pursue the wisdom of the idiots pretending to be the Supremes these days.
We don’t have to waste our money. It will be widely reported on Fox.
March 26th, 2010 at 6:09 PM
Hey, I just had a thought. Gregoire says she represents the people and McKenna doesn’t. If that’s true, why did he receive more votes from Washington voters in both 2004 and 2008?
March 26th, 2010 at 7:29 PM
I don’t get the opposition.
I think the questions are important, and that the expenditures involved in the suit amount to nickels and dimes.
If it fails, so what? A federal court will have ruled on the question.
Why isn’t that important?
Why is asking the question undesirable?
Washington State already offers a considerable range of options for health insurance to people of compromised economic circumstances, so the advantage offered to state citizens by Obamacare is minimal, in my opinion.
March 26th, 2010 at 9:07 PM
“Interstate commerce has been defined very broadly,” she said.
It’s “NEVER” required the purchase of anything!
Like Intrastate or, Interstate?Thus the federal government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools, as in Lopez. This was the first time in sixty years, since the conflict with President Roosevelt in 1936–37, that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress’s commerce power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the entire nation.
No wonder Lindville’s worried!
March 26th, 2010 at 10:54 PM
I’ll attempt to answer your question in the spirit in which it is asked.
There are ten other states who are involved in this lawsuit.
Eight of those states can claim that the majority of their U.S. Representatives voted against HCR.
We are the only state involved in this lawsuit where two thirds of our U.S. Representatives voted in favor of HCR.
Since there are already ten other states involved in this suit, I see no reason why tax dollars from this state need to be spent answering this question.
As one of the states participating in this lawsuit tax payers from the State of Washington get to pay for both sides of the matter. Our federal tax dollars will pay for the Federal side of the case… and our state tax dollars will underwrite this action by these AGs.
The legal question will be answered just fine without Washington State’s participation. There are 39 states, including Alaska (where Sarah Palin is from) and Arizona (where John McCain is from) who will be getting this same question answered for “free”.
And, Republicans still retain some tattered reputation for fiscal conservatism. Getting involved in a high profile law suit like this one does not seem to me to be an exercise in sound fiscal discipline during economically lean times.
How much of the AG’s staff’s personnel and time will be spent on this matter, and what would those resources have been used for if the AG’s office had opted not to participate in this lawsuit?
How much free time does the AG’s staff have on its hands that it can add this burden to its existing workload?
And since when is a few nickels and dimes no big deal to you, Davesix? The nickels and dimes that would go to the WTA levy have been treated like the straw that will break our entire community’s back by its conservative opponents.
This lawsuit, even if you agree with it, is discretionary spending. We don’t need to spend money on it. So, lets not.
If Texas and Florida want to spend money on this lawsuit, then let’s get the answer to this question on their dime.
March 27th, 2010 at 8:19 AM
‘nerd,
Have you seen me railing against the WTA tax, as long as you addressed me personally?
March 27th, 2010 at 8:24 AM
Oh, maybe you didn’t hear, Apexnerd, but McKenna says he’s handling the lawsuit himself. A staff attorney isn’t being assigned to the case.
March 27th, 2010 at 8:44 AM
Bellinghammer,
I agree that the door can swing both ways, and Gregoire & co. must bear in mind that what serves a current purpose could set a precident that could be used by some future governor and legislature. Gregoire herself was once attorney general, and she could potentially have served under a Republican governor at some point.
Worst_Ever,
Wyden says “…when this bill gives you the authority…”. I think Wyden might have been more precise to say that the bill leaves the state’s authority, or recognizes the states authority in that regard. Remember, anything not specified by federal law is presumed to be in the hands of the states.
Liberty Bell said “…It’s “NEVER” required the purchase of anything…”
Well, there has been plenty of mentions in these discussions, that working people must pay social security, and car owners must purchase insurance… purchased from a private company of the user’s choosing. Good or bad idea, it’s not the first example of mandated purchase, it is a bigger more extreme example, but not the first foray.
March 27th, 2010 at 8:55 AM
Apexnerd?
Your comment;
“As one of the states participating in this lawsuit tax payers from the State of Washington get to pay for both sides of the matter. Our federal tax dollars will pay for the Federal side of the case… and our state tax dollars will underwrite this action by these AGs.”
Ever meet Dave McEachran?
The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Award Act of 1976 is a law of the United States. It is often referred to as “Section 1988″. It allows a Federal court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in certain civil rights cases.
Just go ask your County Treasure, Dave, why he keeps paying for the other sides attorney too!
Like that Whatcom County Health Care System, shown best from a Crown Victoria in Custer, from an unlicensed agent, acting without any authority whatsoever, in violation of all laws ever written since 1791?
Of course then there’s the Mt Baker Highway Health Care System too!
Just Vote (D)runk, and you too can find a so called lawyer, who couldent find work anywhere, like Dave McEachran, so he found work right here in the 4th Corner where the Dunce Cap is a Supreme Mental Medical Condition!
March 27th, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Can anyone tell me if Liberty Bell was agreeing or disagreeing with me? And if so, what was he agreeing or disagreeing with me about?
March 27th, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Richard,
The government mandate that we buy insurance from a private company, for simply being a citizen is without precedent. Virtually every law professor agrees with his.
Similar to having the government telling us we must buy our gas from Exxon.
The government mandating we pay a private company for simply being a citizen is without precedent. Any law that does not have clear precedent, is at risk of being overturned.
A strong history of past court decisions affirming the government’s authority under the Constitution, to mandate we buy a service from a private company, does not exist, and this will create a lingering doubt until we have Court guidance.
Paying the government for Social security is different in that the government not forcing us to pay Blue Cross. Any one can forgo paying car insurance, by simply not driving.
This is a case that deserves court clarification, and now is the time to do so, as most of this healthcare bill’s mandates do not kick in immediately, which gives us the time for clarification.
I will not guess at what the courts will decide, as I simply don’t have a clue. I just understand that on something this big, we need to get it right, and the court will provide this foundation.
Having this law, or portions thereof declared unconstitutional after folks start paying would be a disaster.
The ability of the Federal government to redefine the “regulating of commerce” between private parties and extend this ability to “mandate commerce” is an issue that will challenge even the best of legal spinmeisters.
As a practical matter the States second largest expenditure after education, is healthcare. The State’s portion of Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, State employees, etc, is simply a huge number.
Likely also to be challenged along with the private insurance mandate is the special deals cut with some states. Simply making sure that alls states are treated equally be the Federal government when it comes to Medicare reimbursements, is a multi-billion dollar issue, that we could stand to benefit from this suit.
Special deals for Nebraska, Florida, and Arkansas, only raises the costs to the rest of the states, including Washington. Eliminating these special deals, would prove to be a cost savings that far outstrips the pocket change that the AG’s office will spend on this issue.
Laws are challenged everyday on their constitutionality, and when we fear a court challenge, then this is evidence of doubt in my mind.
As we go forward with this plan to change 17% of our economy, we should have as few doubts as possible, and the courts may just agree with Congress and the President, which would put much of the naysaying to rest.
Which is not a bad thing.
Remember that the insurance mandates do not kick in until after the next Presidential elections in 2013.
We have time. Let’s get it right, and on a firm foundation.
The Constitution is there to remind even the King and the Princes in Congress that we are a nation of laws, which they also have to follow.
We should never fear the courtroom. That is exactly what it is there for.
The Founding Fathers designed our system for exactly this situation, and for a valid reason.
Maybe the Governor and Legislature could get back to their unfinished work on the budget, and let the AG do his job. We elected the AG, and elections do indeed have consequences. This is one of them.
We elected the AG, and we can un-elect him.
That is our job, not the Governor’s or the Legislature’s.
March 27th, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Nice work, Doug. I agree.
March 27th, 2010 at 1:02 PM
What is patently hilarious, this great kerfuffle about the mandate to buy health insurance from the private sector, is that this approach was taken to appease the Rs and their insurance industry patrons.
Had the Ds shown the courage to go with single payer, that would have been the end of the health insurance monopoly. But alas, how would the “best health-care system in the world” have survived without the steady hand of the insurance industry steering the ship?
March 27th, 2010 at 1:04 PM
I would rather have had the solution be an open one where quality health care was simply available at a vastly more affordable price with considerably lower profit and admin. Some who do not trust the profit providers would be in favor the government offering such a thing. Some who do not trust the competence of government would favor the market somehow choosing to actually offer it.
There is definitely a national disagreement whether the price gougers or the enlarged government are the worse choice to trust with the solution.
This new health approach counts on private companies who offer overpriced coverage. That model can not work if healthy people or masses of other disinterested people opt out. Then the risk pool would be only very sick and very poor people. The high prices of American care scare away the part of the pool that is required for such an idea to balance out.
That’s why the better route would be either a public option that is run cheaply and efficiently, or competition where we trust the market to offer good cheap care. Both those concepts cause derision by one side or both sides of this issue.
March 27th, 2010 at 1:19 PM
Unfortunately Richard, large amongst the impediments to a market driven health care system is the artificial shortage of doctors; a situation long cultivated by the AMA.
There is more than supply and demand at work in markets. One should never ignore price. Because excessively high price kills demand. The corrective, increased provision of a good or service (greater supply) is frustrated if monopolists preempt competition.
March 27th, 2010 at 1:40 PM
Greg, I generally agree with your analysis, but in this I must disagree.
The Dems have written and passed alone this healthcare bill which requires all Americans into the cattle chute with a private insurance company and their cash register at the end of the chute.
These government mandated customers can be charged anything the insurance industry desires. There is no limit.
The Democrats did this on their own, so I would have to disagree that the insurance industry is a patron of the Republican Party, as I could not think of a bill that treats the insurance industry better than this Democratic endorsed legislation.
Healthcare reform is complicated, but there are a couple of important issues which need to be addressed, and how we address them should be driven by proven systems in place elsewhere in the world, rather than the sales pitches, which too often driven by campaign contributions, instead of what will best serve Americans.
There are two types of single payers systems; One with the government as the middle man collecting premiums, and the other with the private insurance industry collecting the premiums.
Probably the best system as measured by consumer satisfaction, cost, and length of life is the French system, which is single payer, but not to the government. The French pay their premiums to the “evil” regulated private health insurance industry.
I only have to know one thing about the French system. It works.
The French are happy, healthy, and are paying 50% less than Americans.
Why not copy it?
Good question. My guess is that if we follow the money going to politicians, we will find out why we don’t have cost effective healthcare.
Both parties are guilty.
Two things worth noting about the French system: One all full coverage healthcare systems have tort reform, which the Dems will not consider. Second, even in the French system they have to pay most bills out of pocket and ask for reimbursement. Reimbursement is lightening quick (few days), but the simple fact of actually reinstating the act of the consumer opening their wallet and understanding how much services cost, seems to be having a miracle effect on controlling health care costs.
Many countries have the government as the middleman, and all of these systems have proven to be less efficient than the French system. Think of the Post Office, Amtrak, Social Security, and now General Motors. It is simplistic to automatically think that a single payer system that involves the government as the middleman, rather than the regulator, is more efficient.
I find that studying real systems that have worked for long periods of time to be better indicators of efficiency, than a bumper sticker answer to a complicated question.
Warren Buffet said that we should have addressed costs, costs, and costs, which this bill does not accomplish.
Buffet understands insurance, and really understands costs. He is seldom wrong.
When we finally understand the true costs of this bill, I think Buffet’s words will ring true, and we will be back to this health care issue, with even a bigger crisis.
I suspect that the Democrats answer, will be a national sales tax on top of the income tax.
The President guaranteed that this bill would lower costs and provide better healthcare.
We shall see if he is correct.
March 27th, 2010 at 2:49 PM
DK, regards your view “Democrats did this on their own” I fear you have been brainwashed by Faux New. The fact that Ds incorporated ideas intended to attract R support, futilely, makes them look foolish, but not necessarily blameworthy for the ideas; nor make the ideas Democratic.
Compromised away was the clear preference amongst Ds for single payer or at least a public option. Frankly when the Rs started playing political games with reform the Ds should have crammed real reform down instead of this sop to the insurance industry.
Like you, I admire the French system. But whether a non-governmental entity regulated by the government handles the money, or our government itself, seems really to approach something of a distinction with little difference.
“Premium”, “tax”, “fees”, “rent” ? I guess if you grew up on Reaganomics you can still believe our money is better placed in the hands of private industry. Hell, we know when they blow it the taxpayers will bail ‘em out!
Personally, if our government did its job and actually busted the new trusts (monopolies) and went after anti-competitive behavior, I would have more faith in market based solutions.
But as long as we are to have a system that can not create competition, or stop monopolization, I’m for making the people the monopoly, and then they can price drugs and medical treatments accordingly.
March 27th, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Oh, and Doug; “These government mandated customers can be charged anything the insurance industry desires. There is no limit.”
Excuse me, but for a small fee, a citizen can opt out and return to the emergency rooms and hope they’re not bankrupted by health care providers blessed with the profits from their suffering.
You gotta love this system. You see, as the insurance cartel prices their policies, they will be controlled by the same limits that constrain them now, whatever the market will bear!
March 27th, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Greg,
Big business has corrupted our political system, on that I think we both agree. Which is to say as long as big business continues to fund the politicians, we will not be served well by our government.
The health insurance industry could be the patrons of the Republicans yesterday, and the patrons of the Democrats tomorrow. Regardless we are screwed either way.
On the other hand we may both agree that “honest” and vibrant competition” does bring down costs, but dishonest and the rigged “quasi-competition” of today, does not.
When it comes to efficient administration of healthcare though, I have to go to the calculator.
Big business has much to atone for, but the management efficiency of government in the Postal system, Amtrak, or Social security is nothing but dismal by almost any measurement.
Somewhere though here is a line between big business and small business. For the most part small business should not be painted with the broad brush, because they don’t enjoy this politician protected playing field.
There are a lot of hard working men and women in business.
My fear is that as business is painted as bad, that we will continue to grow government and siphon off our best and brightest away from private industry, which could cripple our global competitiveness. Chasing away employers, capital, and talent away from America with a hostile business environment.
Lowering tax receipts long term.
This would be a spiral which could endanger the nation, if it hasn’t already.
Buffet placed his faith in the US and its private enterprise system. He has done well, but he has a rule concerning honesty.
He insists on honesty, which if I understand you, should apply to both government and business.
I agree.
March 27th, 2010 at 4:27 PM
I understand that 3000 people showed up in Olympia today to demonstrate in support of the AG.
March 27th, 2010 at 5:16 PM
For those of you who are not convinced of the opposition to this legislation, I offere these photographs, taken today of a TEA Party rally in Searchlight, Nevada, which is Harry Reid’s home.
March 27th, 2010 at 5:17 PM
The link:http://americanpatrol.com/10-FEATURES/100327-FEATURE2/PHOTOS/100327-Photos.html
March 27th, 2010 at 6:26 PM
As you might suspect, given my characteristically perverse perspective, I look on with a combination of horror, humor and amazement as I watch this pageant of village idiots scripted like some rabble chorus in a Greek tragedy.
How can these tea partiers miss the Alice in Wonderland illogic of their opposition to attempts, any, even trivial, to reform a health care system that is bleeding them like medieval medical charlatans?
And what a deal it is for the status quo! The way they play our two noble political parties off against each other is splendidly Machiavellian. Heads I win; tails you lose.
If the Ds feeble effort stands, the insurers rake it in from 35 million more victims and reach into tax payers pockets to subsidize those too poor to bleed in their own right. If the Rs and their foot soldiers in the T Potty prevail, it’s business as usual; no change.
I’m sorry, but it does make me laugh. And which of these historical scholars came up with the theory that the American revolution, and the little episode in Boston’s harbor, was about taxation? Seems to fit the revisionist effort to recast history and the forces that created our constitution in keeping with what they would have be the first and foremost of a bill of rights: I get mine.
No, the revolution was not about taxation, it was born of frustration and economic depression brought on by a foreign power that took control of the colonists money supply.
As Dr. Franklin wrote in his autobiography, “The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War.”
But what would Ben Franklin know? And what would these folks in Searchlight know beyond what they’re told to believe. Oh, the bankers, insurers and the rest of the would be rent seekers must just love this new anti-government movement.
I can’t wait to see them in the streets defending the fat cats of finance from reform of the financial system.
March 27th, 2010 at 6:46 PM
If you find American history and the history of finance interesting Dave, you might enjoy this article:
http://norwestreview.blogspot.com/2009/02/ghkirsch-banking-revolution.html
March 28th, 2010 at 2:42 AM
Kirsch, you seem like a smart enough guy. I thought uninformed slurs were beneath you. I am a democrat who is now a Tea Party member and will vote for whomever will uphold the US constitution. That wasn’t Bush and it certainly isn’t Obama. You ought to get out and check your facts.
March 28th, 2010 at 3:19 AM
My dear Fern, that was an informed slur!
March 28th, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Great Link Kirsh!
And where did Madison learn about the money changer’s?
Hillary’s Madison banking scandle with the Rose Law Firm.
Or was it Barney Madoff best friend, Netanyahu?
Hamilton’s money changers, press release! Rotten Forever!
http://www.bnymellon.com/pressreleases/2010/pdf/pr032410.pdf
“who will rid me of this priest…” Vice President Burr, didn’t pull the trigger soon enough!
Matthew
“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all of them that sold and bought in the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers…”
Mark
“And they come to Jerusaleum; and Jesus went into the temple and begun to cast out them thet sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers…”
John
And the Jews passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And he found in the temple those that sold oxen, sheep, and doves, and the changers of money sitting…he drove them all out of the temple…and poured out the changers” money, and overthrew the tables;”
Yes Hamilton, one left behind, sucking up for Washington, and the older and newer corruption in both church and state!
March 28th, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Actually, this is a very good move to reign in the free-lancing of the Attorney General. He is supported by our tax monies to represent clients- the governor, the legislature, the state agencies, and the citizens. Any attorney is expected to obtain the consent of his client before taking an action to represent that client. In the case of the state officials and agencies, such consent would be given (or not) in response to a formal request from the attorney (general). In the case of the taxpayers of Washington State, such consent would be given (or not) by a referendum in which the taxpayers indicate if this is a cause on which they want their taxes to be spent. Sadly, the Attorney General forgot to request his clients’ permission. Oops.
In the absence of such permission by the client, the Attorney General is acting as a free-lance agent for his own whims. If he wants to do that, then he should resign and register his legal challenge to the new Health Care law in the capacity of a private citizen or as an attorney for a like-minded think tank. Spend my tax dollars on this frivolous lawsuit?-hell no!
Abe Jacobson
March 28th, 2010 at 3:38 PM
If the Attorney General had to have a voter referendum, each time he wished challenge a law, he would get nothing done.
Maybe the proper way is when he runs for elections again, you should vote against him, and we shall see how many folks really dislike his job performance, which includes more than just one decision.
March 28th, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Doug, it is not the AG’s role to challenge the law, but enforce it.
With all the existing failures of enforcement, it is hard to imagine how Robo can find the time to tilt at windmills; at the same time running for governor.
March 28th, 2010 at 6:35 PM
Greg,
“Doug, it is not the AG’s role to challenge the law, but enforce it.”
Do you have a reference from the Washington State Constitution for that?
March 28th, 2010 at 6:36 PM
Politics is played by both sides. One is not better than the other. I am not arguing that McKenna is not playing politics. He is, but what he is doing is perfectly legal and within the normal authority of the Attorney General.
Kinda like the “reconcilliation” process to circumvent the 60 vote rule in the Senate. Perfectly legal, but it is hardball politics.
Passing a law which may be unconstitutional, is no more fair politically speaking than, challenging the Constitutionality of one so passed.
It sees like “fairness” today is in the eye of the beholder and each side is whining that the other side is playing unfair hardball politics. I have lost empathy for either side. Both could play better together, and the American people would be better served if they did get along better.
Attorney Generals’ have challenged laws on a Constitutional basis throughout our history. Enforcing laws does not include enforcing laws which the Attorney General has Constitutional doubts.
Can you imagine the wailing if the Attorney General did not challenge racial discrimination laws, as unconstitutional?
We expect Attorney General’s to stand up for our Constitutional Rights.
This is P O L I T I C S. Every elected official bar none, plays it. Which of them is clean?
I don’t know if the law is constitutional, but the law is without question a very major law. Clearly not one clear instance that I can find uses the power of government to demand under penalty of law, that I purchase ANYTHING from a private company, for simply being a resident of the Country.
The government can tax me to provide all of us with pooled services, but force me to write a check to Blue Cross, one of the evil insurance companies that the president just spent a year criticising.
There is no clear precedence here.
Dems are claiming that this is the same as a tax. Sorry, taxes are paid to the government, and not to Blue Cross. Its like car insurance, but unfortunately there is the pesky problem, that I can choose not to drive and avoid insurance bills altogether.
Look, I have reasonable doubts that this bill is wise or Constitutional, and I will be the first to admit, I could easily be wrong. I have my opinion, and hopefully I have the wisdom to admit if I am wrong.
Like Buffet, the bill did not lower medical care, and because this is the true cause of insurance going up, there is no doubt in my mind that the medical expenses of the nation as a percentage of GDP, will continue to increase. Buffet I trust, and he is smarter than McKenna, Gregoire, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid combined. (Okay I might be exaggerating a little)
If Buffet is correct, we will be back to revisit this bill which is supposed to lower our medical costs and give us better health care, and the crisis will be worse. If this happens, it will be difficult for the Dems to avoid their role.
My money is on Buffet.
The Attorney General has right to his opinion, and although he may end up being wrong, he is not an irrational person, and he may end up being correct. The voters will have chance to evaluate the AG’s judgement, and it is the voters right to decide the AG’s fate, not the Governor’s or the Legislature’s.
They are playing politics too.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them person a bad person. Nor does it mean that your view is correct, just different.
It’s okay, sometimes we just disagree, and the courts are set up for this exact situation.
Today, our government has quit serving us to the best of its ability, and has become beholden to special interests and the twin sisters of Avarice and Ambition.
If we don’t regain control of our government, we will continue to get worse and worse solutions to our significant problems.
Our Founding Fathers were concerned about commerce, as you so accurately pointed out, but far outstripping commerce, was the fear of a powerful central government, In fact at our Constitutional Convention the big debate was whether to have a Central government at all. This was narrowly won, by a single vote, but in writing the Constitution, remember that a strong omnipotent central government was feared by our Founding Fathers, because throughout human history, it was the concentration of power that in the end continued to strangle the citizens in a ever increasing grip.
I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves at the size and scope of Federal government. They feared great concentrations of power, which why they were so careful to distribute this power.
Rather than get divided which plays into the hands of the political elite, we should figure out how to come together in a common sense fashion that retake some of the power back, so that government remembers to serve us well, before they serve the big corporations, their lobbyists, and their own ambitions and pocketbooks.
In the grand scheme of things, this whole thing is small potatoes.
While the Tea Party has its flaws, it is a force that is grass roots in nature, and for the most part sincere. Now sincere is not necessarily wise, but I do not think the bulk of the Tea party members are some sort of anarchists and radicals. Let me point you two facts that give this statement credence. The Tea Party has held two major events in Washington DC. The first had exactly zero arrests for any type of disturbance. The only complaint was a little litter. The second not only had no arrests, but the Tea Party organizers took the complaints from the first event to heart, and organized the policing of their own trash.
No arrests, no violence, and no litter. A fair minded person has to give them credit for good behavior, regardless if you agree with their ideas.
Free love, dope smoking hippies did infinately more damage in the 70’s, than this geriatric crowd.
Dangerous, you bet. Politically dangerous, as neither party controls this group, and it has the energy and numbers to change elections.
Physically dangerous, not unless you are afraid of granny yelling at you for wasting taxpayer money and stealing the Social Security “TRUST FUND”. She is pissed, has a valid point, and has a logical reason to be angry.
She also has a right to voice her anger. A right that if removed, your voice will be the next target. Silencing vocal dissent is coming into vogue, and this my friends is a very dangerous thing to have government remove from a free society. One of the oldest methods government has historically used to consolidate power is to silence dissent.
Then why all the hew and cry about bigoted, violent, toothless, cracker, gun toting rednecks?
P O L I T I C S.
The easiest method of winning a public debate is to attack your opponents character. That is exactly what is happening. Spotlight an isolated fringe nut case, and then call ALL of them nut cases.
When you paint all the Tea Partiers nut cases, how do you expect the sincere, peaceful, and thoughtful ones are going to react?
I kinda like the resurgence in interest in our countries roots and the founding principles. Our schools have done a poor job lately of getting these principles right.
Maybe it is better that from time to time, we revisit our core principles and ask folks how it is working out for them. Could it be improved?
Renew our vows so to speak.
I would like to see a Constitutional Convention with the option of getting the money out of politics, because if our laws are written for those with power and money, most of us will end up as serfs, either by paying our paychecks to support a bloated government which hands it back out to friends, or by paying higher costs to companies which the government annoints and protects from competition.
Greg you are correct about the rent seekers, and when our country began our revolution, Americans were not allowed to be rent seekers, only the friends of the King were allowed to make substantial profits in any commercial endeavour. Tea was only the tip of the iceberg, but it was symbolic of decades of economic mistreatment.
We threw off that yoke and prospered.
I fear that we are being fitted for another yoke.
Maybe that is why the concentration of power was feared by our Founding Fathers?
March 28th, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Dave: I think it’s Section 21: The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.
This is all a tempest in a tea pot, so I am not interested in wasting more time. Maybe, since the AG was not asked to challenge this law by the governor or legislator (or even in response to an initiative of the people) you know of a law that charges him with this duty.
Doug: You need to hire an editor!
March 28th, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Doug,
“Maybe that is why the concentration of power was feared by our Founding Fathers?”
The only question left is how to accomplish the devolution and return to Federalism that is necessary for the salvation of the republic.
I continue to predict an economic collapse resulting from US debt that will provide the catalyst.
Everyone predicted that Social Security would be revenue-positive until at least 2017.
It’s revenue-negative this year.
March 28th, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Greg,
I do not understand why a definitive interpretation of this issue is unworthy of investigation and litigation, at minimal cost.
I don’t think the State of Washington should be a free-rider on this issue.
Reasonable people can disagree.
From a political point of view, I think this is a loser for the Dems. Maybe I’m wrong, but there is no upside for them in giving McKenna more exposure, especially considering that most people oppose the reform that was passed.
March 28th, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Dave, I note your comments to DK. Regards the litigation and Washington being a free rider, I frankly can’t believe that Robo is doing anything for the prosecution of the case beyond lending our state’s name.
But what I would like to add, given your comments about what is good or bad for the Dems or Rs, is that a substantial part of the problem is the two party system. And I am not sure a third party will solve anything.
I think it would be very interesting to consider how campaigning and elections would go in a no party system. And yes, I am aware of all the free association issues.
It seems though that these two behemoths have such a thirst for power and the privileges that accrue to those who hold office that they have sold out entirely in return for the money to conquer the other. And we the people are the real losers.
Please understand that my colorful criticism of the “Tea Potty” is my way of writing. I enjoy watching them shake things up. I fully expect they’ll turn on Armey, Palin et al when the time comes. But their naive orthodoxy at the moment leaves me cold.
You might get a chuckle from this link:http://norwestreviewlocal.blogspot.com/2010/03/anyone-for-tea.html
March 29th, 2010 at 7:00 AM
Which Alice, Kirsch?
The 1865 version, and the mad hatter, and Chesier Cat’s tea party?
The 1965 Version, from Jefferson Airplane?
The 1971 Published Version, by an unkonwn author?
Or my kids favorite, from Walt’s Magical Hollywood Kingdom?
Or the Alice in Chains version from Seattle?
In the end, regards the Tea Party as a political movement, I will agree with Alice (you remember Alice?), “If it had grown up, it would have made a dreadfully ugly child; but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think.”
The title is from the lyrics to the Jefferson Airplane song “White Rabbit”. Grace Slick wrote the song based on perceived drug references in the classic novel Alice In Wonderland. (On July 14 [page 36 of the 2006 edition], the writer says she “feel[s] like Alice in Wonderland” and “maybe Lewis G. Caroll [sic?] was on drugs too.”)
But before Alice received her copy, Dodgson was already preparing it for publication and expanding the 15,500-word original to 27,500 words, most notably adding the episodes about the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Tea-Party. In 1865, Dodgson’s tale was published as Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by “Lewis Carroll” with illustrations by John Tenniel. The first print run of 2,000 was held back because Tenniel objected to the print quality.[7] A new edition, released in December of the same year, but carrying an 1866 date, was quickly printed. As it turned out, the original edition was sold with Dodgson’s permission to the New York publishing house of Appleton. The binding for the Appleton Alice was virtually identical to the 1866 Macmillan Alice, except for the publisher’s name at the foot of the spine. The title page of the Appleton Alice was an insert cancelling the original Macmillan title page of 1865, and bearing the New York publisher’s imprint and the date 1866.
LOne pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don’t do anything at all
Go ask Alice
When she’s ten feet tall
And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you’re going to fall
Tell them a hookah smoking caterpillar has given you the call
Call Alice
When she was just small
When the men on the chess board
get up and tell you where to go
And you just had some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving slow
Go ask Alice
I think she’ll know
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen’s “Off with her head!”
Remember what the dormouse said
Keep your head
Keep your head
March 29th, 2010 at 7:28 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland_(1903_film)
March 29th, 2010 at 7:38 AM
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen’s “Off with her head!”
Remember what the dormouse said…
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/150784
March 29th, 2010 at 9:35 AM
The state’s involved have hired outside legal counsel.
March 29th, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Don’t the individual states regulate car insurance, not the federal government?
March 29th, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Sam, You are correct that States have traditionally regulated insurance.
When they drafted the Constitution they intentionally limited the powers of the Federal government, and all authority that was not given to the Federal government, was specifically reserved for the States.
Clearly in this debate the States were intended to dilute the concentration of power in the Federal government.
Wonky, but it will be part of this suit, and the Fed may lose on this issue alone.
Additionally the difinition between regulating commerce between private parties doing business, and “mandating commerce” are going to be big issues.
Even the most liberal of judges are going to have a difficult time developing clear written reasoning on this issue. The mandate that you write a check to a private company will be troublesome to any judge, because where do we draw the line on allowing government to force citizens to send a check to selected private companies?
Just because one may have the opinion that something is ultimately good for the country, doesn’t mean that it is then Constitutional.
Probably be better to get this cleared up, don’t ya think?
March 29th, 2010 at 10:14 AM
Doug - While I appreciate you agreeing with me about car insurance, the current case law on the Commerce Clause doesn’t necessarily seem to agree with your other assertions.
March 29th, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Doug, it remains unclear if these reactionary litigants seek to overturn the mandate, or the entire law. I think, notwithstanding your objection to the mandate, your position is actually in support of returning to the status quo.
So, in effect, you seem to believe private insurers will better and more efficiently regulate the provision of health care and control its cost.
Today’s dominant orthodoxy (neo-liberal economics and neo-conservative politics) is the assumption that markets tend to stabilize automatically in a fair and equitable balance, and hence do not require government regulation. Sure worked great for banking !
Herbert Stein famously quipped: “Things that can’t go on forever, don’t.” And I believe that is what we now have come up against in health-care.
March 29th, 2010 at 10:46 AM
Greg,
“…hence do not require government regulation. Sure worked great for banking !”
You’re arguing that banks aren’t regulated?
Aren’t you really arguing that the banks were subject to regulation that was at the same time perverse and incompetent?
March 29th, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Dave, this is a matter of degree, not kind.
Yes banks are regulated. However, we have surely learned that they are not sufficiently regulated. Neo-liberal economic theory embraces the notion that markets are self regulating. (all that invisible hand stuff)
The ensuing destruction of the economy as a result of this lack of regulation seems pretty strong evidence that the neo-liberal theory is debunked.
The perversity and incompetence you rightly recognize is a direct of result of not regulating the size of banks and allowing them to become too big to fail. At the same time, by their shear size, they have achieved such influence over government (and regulators) we may never rein them in again.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Greg,
We will have to see exactly what is challenged in this legislation. There seldom is a lawsuit that challenges everything. Especially in a 2400 page bill.
I am not in favor of the status quo. Never have been. The amount of money that we are spending on health care is staggering and crippling our economy by wasting money that could improve our standing in a dog eat dog competitive world out there.
I agree with Buffet, its cost, cost, costs.
Gawd, I hate to say this, but if they snarling partisan dogs in DC would simply just pass the French system word for word, I could live with that.
This would truly reduce costs 50%, and still give us a good healthcare system.
When I said word for word, I did not mean literally, but after translating from French.
It works.
Hard to argue with that.
Buffet is a French word, is it not?
March 29th, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Oui monsieur Karlberg.
Tu as raison en haut. La systeme Francais peut etre la meilleur du monde. Mais je pense que les gens Americains espere d’avoir la choix de payer trop, s’ils veulent ca.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Greg, we probably agree on banking regulation, but I would like to see the invisible hand of bankruptcy reinstated for the largest corporations.
Complete and total loss of capital, has a regulating influence too, and no system should be without it.
That alone is not enough to provide safety though. but without the fear of bankruptcy, i am doubtful that regulations will ever provide the security we desire, as regulations can be changed by those with influence, while bankruptcy has been remarkable even handed to to those who take foolish risks. I know with the exception of Government Motors.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Dang Richard, I don’t know what you said, but it sure is sexy.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:30 AM
Doug, glad you agree that time’s up for the status quo.
But it demeans dogs to mention them in the same breath with our esteemed leaders in Washington.
Yes, buffet is, I guess, French. Nonetheless, I prefer smorgasbord.
March 29th, 2010 at 11:50 AM
This discussion has taken a little swerve into territory covered by this column, at Mises Daily:
“GDP and Extended Low Rates”
http://mises.org/daily/4220
The article explains why a trillion dollars worth of non-performing second-lien loans on the books of major banks is providing a huge incentive for the Fed to maintain very low interest rates.
These loans are very often subordinate to underwater first-lien loans.
“So evidently the Fed chairman either doesn’t believe the phony numbers produced down the street from his office, or he has something to “support” with interest rates just north of zero.
That something is, among other things, the trillion-plus dollars’ worth of second-trust deed loans on the books of the nation’s banks. Now maybe a trillion bucks doesn’t sound like all that much, but again, these aren’t loans originated and then thrown into some sort of mortgage stew, called AAA, and ladled out to hungry buyers the world over. These are loans held by US Banks by the boatload. In its current issue, Grant’s Interest Rate Observer points out that HELOCs (Home Equity Lines of Credit) and other junior liens at four of the nation’s biggest banks are extraordinary percentages of Tier 1 capital at these banks: Wells Fargo 114%, BofA 93%, J.P. Morgan 55.7% and Citigroup 44.5%.”
Here is why that is important:
“Besides, as mortgage and housing consultant Mark Hansen tells Grants, “The true default rate in the second liens has been obfuscated by the ability of banks to benchmark their rates against their borrowing rates.” Hansen explains that banks can modify a second-lien loan to keep it “performing” (and not have to charge it off) by lowering the borrower’s rate to one percent and require just interest-only payments. With the Fed charging rates just above zero, the big banks still make money on the spread, but more importantly the loan is considered performing and no hit is taken to capital, keeping the big banks in business.”
March 29th, 2010 at 11:55 AM
Unfortunately Doug, with the advent of too big to fail, your hoped solution will not suffice.
In neo-liberal jargon, the slogan,“free markets” is a euphemism for centralizing planning power in the hands of financial and other vested interests that are seeking to escape oversight, regulation and taxation by elected officials.
They seek above all to make central banks independent – that is, controlled by the commercial banking interest – and to concentrate trade and tax policy in the hands of the IMF and World Bank globally, and domestically in an Executive Branch controlled by financial and property lobbyists.
Thanks largely to the privatization of election financing and its rising media advertising costs in today’s political campaigns, the vested property and financial interests have succeeded in un-taxing and deregulating themselves.
This is just the opposite policy from that advocated by the classical liberal political economists from Adam Smith through John Stuart Mill. To these “original” liberals, a free market meant a market free of free lunches for the rent seekers. Their idea of freedom was one of equal opportunity for all economic players.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Sam, I am not sure which case law you are referring too. There is a lot of case law.
I would be very interested if you could lead me to a solid Supreme Court decision that allows for the government to “mandate” the purchase of a product from a private company by the Federal government, which I believe is the central question.
The reason we have not heard much about the specific case law that applies perfectly to this specific law, is that there really isn’t any directly on point.
Other wise it would have made headlines before now.
People are confusing whether Congress can regulate healthcare insurance. This is the case law to which many point. I suspect Congress can regulate, but that is not the difficult question in my mind. The difficult questions, is can Congress “mandate” the purchase of a product from a private company.
This is a more difficult question, otherwise pundits would have pointed to all the myriad of examples where the Federal government requires all citizens to purchase XYZ products from the Acme manufacturing company.
There are sparse examples of this. It is the mandate, that is going to cause grief, as taxing people to provide services like Social Security is different than “mandating” people buy insurance from a private company.
Who guarantees that my insurance company will not go broke or unfairly refuse to pay? The government forced me to pay these smucks, shouldn’t the government bear some of the responsibility if the insurance company turns out to be smucks and refuses the drugs to save my life. My day in court doesn’t have much meaning if you are seriously ill and your insurance company balks at the cost of saving your life.
I know you have a budding interest in the study of law. When you get a spare moment, see if you can find a Supreme Court decision that decides whether the Federal government can force all citizens to purchase a service or good from a private company, with no method of opting out.
The government collecting money is well established, but the government sending me through an insurance salesman’s door and telling me to pay whatever the man asks, or I could be arrested or fined, is quite something else.
Where does this “mandate” power begin and end. Could they force me to buy a car from GM. If this “mandate” power passes? If not, why not? What are the restrictions on using mandates? What principles are involved? I can see a justice asking this very question. It is a good one. Is the word “mandate” defined as identical to “regulate”, as used in the Constitution? Some would lean toward the simplistic answer which is simply to define “mandate” as to have the same meaning as “regulate”. Law is seldom this simple, nor is my layman’s study of law adequate to give any opinion as to outcome, other than to say, I can’t find any clean examples of the Federal government using their power in this way in the past.
Maybe the day is coming when I can see my “Blue Cross Tax” on my property tax receipt.
That is your mission, to find specific clear case law.
This comment will self-destruct in 15 seconds.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:22 PM
I suspect Greg that you are on to something accurate and more important than we realize, its just I can’t get my head around it yet.
I am listening closely though, and I shant put up much of a fight when it comes to our banking system, because in my gut I feel like we always lose, and I suspect that there is a group that always wins.
And that ain’t fair.
March 29th, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Doug, there are several major cases that are the base for all others. U.S. vs. Darby Lumber; Wickard v. Filburn; Swift v. U.S. are three good ones to check in to.
March 29th, 2010 at 2:52 PM
All three of these decisions address whether Congress has the Constitutional authority granted under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce.
There si not questions that Congress does.
This is not the critical question in my mind though.
The questions is; may Congress mandate that private citizens by simple virtue of their citizenship, be required to purchase a service from a private company.
If so are there any conditions, and how do these conditions apply to the HealthCare mandate?
Especially a service that has few competitors, and no limit as to what they can charge.
I simply cannot find case law that clearly addresses these last two questions directly.
Nor can I find historical examples of where the government has forced consumers to purchase good or services, from a list of government chosen private companies, with no limits on what can be charged.
I don’t have to buy auto insurance, nor milk, if I do not chose to.
Where else has the government forced all citizens to buy something from a private company, and fined us if we did not.
Keep in mind that as citizens we are treated differently than businesses under the “Commerce Clause”.
I can still raise my own milk for personal consumption, which is freedom to be cherished here in Lynden.
Still open minded about the issue.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Doug - the entire case hinges on whether or not the law as passed falls under the federal government’s powers under the commerce clause. That, and the 10th Amendment, though that’s not much of an argument (read up on the “truism” of the 10th Amendment, as described by the SCOTUS).
So, yes, those cases matter. A lot.
March 29th, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Sam, it will be an interesting case.
It is clear that everyone is having a difficult time coming up with solid example of a government mandate to purchase a good or service from a private company, which by the shear logic tells me that there is little or no case law.
We are going to make some. Too bad, as this is just another waste.
If you believe the Dems we are going to insure another 35 million people and it will not increase the cost. For arguments sake, let’s say they have figured out how to do it.
Today the US spends ~17% of Gross National Product on medical expenses.
If we switched to the French system we would only be paying ~12% of GDP, which is an annual savings of ~$700 billion.
This savings would greatly stimulate the economy, increasing tax receipts across the board. We would not have to borrow money from overseas this year, to have a government stimulus plan.
And best of all, this ~$700 billion stimulus would happen every year without borrowing or taxing..
The French live longer and are happy with their health care system, but it would not generate the same deluge of campaign contributions though.
It is an interesting questions. What would the benefits be to our economy, if we simply adopted the French healthcare system?
Every one would be covered. Instead we now know with the latest Treasury report that the US owes $12 trillion plus another $94 trillion in promised benefits to retirees, that we have not saved one penny for, and this does not include debt held by states or local government.
That is of course assuming that the Dems are being honest and the recently passed health care plan does not cost any more than predicted, otherwise we are worse off than we started.
And in my book that would be a colossal failure.
Regardless of who wins this lawsuit, we are collectively losers.
March 29th, 2010 at 4:15 PM
$100 Trillion is $40 a day for every man, women, and child, just in interest at 5%.
If you have two kids both parents will have to come up with $80 a day each. Seven days a week.
Saturdays and Sundays too. That’s $10 an hour just to pay the INTEREST on the liabilities.
Police, military, and all government costs including employee wages will be on top of this. State government and local government is on top of this too.
Just to pay the interest on this debt.
And that is just to pay the interest on the liabilities we have right now.
And we are adding more all the time as deficit spending continues. (No matter which party is in power)
Those Tea Party folks are sure being irrational!!!
March 29th, 2010 at 11:56 PM
We elected McKenna to watch our backs - keep things on the up-and-up. I’d think the left end of the spectrum would care as much as the right end of the spectrum about right and wrong. Don’t we all want transparency and honor in government? We just had “sunshine week” — heck of a follow-up… If these bills are so constitutional, why not let it go to court? This is so obviously low that we should all be howling - left, right, and center as they say on NPR.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:05 AM
Did you see that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeouns sued to overturn Obamacare, asserting that it gvio9lates the fifth amendment?
TUCSON, Ariz., March 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) became the first medical society to sue to overturn the newly enacted health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). AAPS sued Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (AAPS v. Sebelius et al.).
“If the PPACA goes unchallenged, then it spells the end of freedom in medicine as we know it,” observed Jane Orient, M.D., the Executive Director of AAPS. “Courts should not allow this massive intrusion into the practice of medicine and the rights of patients.”
“There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”
http://bit.ly/dxk3R6
March 30th, 2010 at 8:08 AM
Man, I never could type.
Continuing, “The PPACA requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. Insurance company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another. AAPS is the first to assert this important constitutional claim.”
The suit also asserts a tenth amendment claim.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:36 AM
Dave, the AAPS is a politically-conservative association literally created in 1943 to fight group medicine, etc.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:53 AM
Sam,
Conservative?
Horrors!
I suppose the court will decline to grant them standing, then.
March 30th, 2010 at 9:06 AM
No, Dave, the point is they’re much more of a lobbying group for conservative principles than they are for medical issues.
March 30th, 2010 at 9:17 AM
“There will be a dire shortage of physicians if the PPACA becomes effective and is not overturned by the courts.”
Right, the existing doctors will emigrate to Canada to practice. Or maybe China, India or your favorite banana republic.
And the “best and brightest” will ignore medicine, instead to pursue lucrative careers as engineers in the rapidly growing US manufacturing sector.
Maybe, in fact, with the exodus of medical profiteers, and an increase in the number of medical schools (and consequently doctors) we’d produce a better breed of physicians. Maybe it would put the “care” back in health-care.
March 30th, 2010 at 9:34 AM
Greg,
What would put the “care” back in health care would be a helluva lot less government.
Here’s an article from the AMA that addresses the issue:
“New medical schools open, but physician shortage concerns persist
The number of residents and fellows also is increasing, but not enough to match the loss of retiring physicians.”
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/03/29/prl20329.htm
March 30th, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Hey Kelli, welcome to the wonderful world of checks and balances. Trying to strip an elected official of his funding to further your political agenda is tacky.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:09 AM
OK, Dave. You know I’m thick. You’ll have to explain how less government will increase the number of medical schools and students.
I will breathlessly await your assistance.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:14 AM
PS Might be interesting to take a look at retiring physicians too. Sure wish I could retire. But then I don’t make the kind of gita they do. Wonder what the average age of physician retirement is. Wonder how many only have to practice part time, when they can’t play golf or are worn out from vacationing. Wonder what the average hourly work week is.
You know what they say, “The figures don’t lie, but liars know how to figure.”
April 1st, 2010 at 8:51 AM
[...] Rep. Kelli Linville (D-Bellingham) also has concerns about the Medicaid expansion. When asked if the state can afford this, she said: Actually for me I couldn’t specifically [...]
April 1st, 2010 at 11:15 PM
Linville like Gregoire have made it perfectly clear; they Do NOT care about the people or the LAW. Linville like Gregoire took an Oath to Uphold the US Constitution and the Washington State Constitution. By thier own words and actions they have broken that Oath and Committed Perjury under the very Laws the Swore to uphold. Thier actions against the US Constitution and the people it was written to protect is an ACT OF TREASON. The 10th Amendment shall Stand and these Criminals shall fall. Linville clearly doesn’t want to be re-elected.
I am a Disabled United States Navy Veteran and I wouldn’t wish my Government Health Insurance on the most wretched of people, not even Linville. There are less painfull ways to live and with much more Dignity than to be forced to suffer at the hands of the United States Government.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible; make violent revolution inevitable.” John F. Kennedy
April 2nd, 2010 at 6:11 AM
Charles R. Forbes the first director of the Veterans’ Bureau by President Warren G. Harding in 1921. Forbes gave himself the rank of Colonel in the US Army, from which he had deserted in 1912.
Stole over a billion dollars, love that VA Health Care Reform, coming soon to you too, Peppermint Pattys favorite Rat Hole too!