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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Dang Richard, I don’t know what you said, but it sure is sexy.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
$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!!!
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.
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
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.
Dave, the AAPS is a politically-conservative association literally created in 1943 to fight group medicine, etc.
Sam,
Conservative?
Horrors!
I suppose the court will decline to grant them standing, then.
No, Dave, the point is they’re much more of a lobbying group for conservative principles than they are for medical issues.
“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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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
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!