Brownies
If they do this to brownies, just wait ’till you see what they do for your trip to the doctor.
Posted in Healthcare, National Politics, New | 34 Comments »
‘Healthcare’ Articles
The Nanny State
Busybody doctors are often behind government paternalism. Now the government should tell us how salty our pizza should be?
Is there no limit to what people should be forced to do?
Posted in Freedom, Healthcare, New, Policy | 19 Comments »
Well?
The interesting has a non-scientific poll it runs each day. Yesterday’s question was:
Are you concerned with rising health insurance premiums?
I especially enjoyed this response:
Yes. Not that it matters, but I’m on Social Security so eventually I’ll be broke and won’t be able to pay any bills. What are you people going to do about it?
— M.A., Great Falls
[Emphasis Added]
Posted in Healthcare, Ideology, National Politics, New | 11 Comments »
More on Carroll College’s controversial decision
Several people have asked me my opinion of the decision of Carroll College to retract its grant of space for my April 14 constitutional lecture. The event was sponsored by the Carroll College Young Republicans and the local Tea Party organization. Because Carroll cancelled the event, it was moved at the last minute to a local hotel. Two different counts showed that nearly 300 people showed up. After my opening remarks I answered questions for about two hours.
Here is my perspective:
* Carroll is a private institution, and it can impose any speech policy it wants. Part of the right to private property is the right to do things with that property you or I might not agree with.
* Carroll’s policy requiring that speakers be vetted by all constituencies of the college before the speech if the speaker might create an “emotional” reaction is an interesting approach for an academic institution. It certainly contradicts accepted norms of academic freedom, particularly because it creates what sometimes is called a “heckler’s veto” – that is, any one who strongly disagrees with a speaker potentially can prevent others from hearing him. I understand that this is what happened in this case.
* Most colleges routinely entertain and encourage speakers with controversial points of view. Indeed, Carroll routinely invites speakers with controversial left-of-center points of view. Besides the end-of-life panel, Carroll will be hosting Senator Baucus to speak on health care next month.
* Even assuming Carroll’s policy made sense in the abstract, the application in this case did not. The public events that have led to emotion and confrontation were those in which members of Congress were speaking at town hall meetings to angry constituents. This was not that kind of event. It was a lecture and Q&A session by an academic on America’s Basic Law.
Because Carroll is a private rather than a public college, there are, and should be, no First Amendment issues here. It is, however, jarring that liberals should be arguing that speech should be shut down if it is too controversial. It was not so long ago that they preferred to cite the immortal words of one of their icons, Justice William O. Douglas, who wrote in Terminiello v. Chicago:
“A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purposes when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment. . . “
Posted in Conservatism, Constitution, Freedom, Healthcare, Ideology, Law, Liberalism, Montana, National Politics, New, Policy, Tea Party | 32 Comments »
Congress Passes The Bill To Find What’s In It
Gotta love this. From Daniel Foster:
Ben Domenech at The New Ledger points to the provision in Obamacare that made this delicious irony possible:
(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).
[...]
Most crucially, unlike other sections of Obamacare triggered in 2014 or later, the Grassley-lite amendment doesn’t contain an effective date, a “drafting error” which by well-established precedent of statutory interpretation means that it goes into effect with the president’s signature. Thus, members of Congress and their staffs are dumped into the insurance exchanges four years before the exchanges are even established!
Perhaps we should hold them to the law.
Posted in Healthcare, National Politics, New, Policy | 2 Comments »
Blink and You’ll Miss It
I would not have known about Sen. Tester’s visit to the UM Campus if the Montana Kaimin didn’t cover it. Apparently, the ‘road show’ was not well received:
A sparsely attended session with U.S. Sen. Jon Tester on health care and student loans was short and not-so-sweet Tuesday morning.
Posted in Healthcare, National Politics, New | 9 Comments »
“Free” Health Care
From McClatchy:
“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.
LOL.
The funniest part, though, is that the reporter suggests that this “misconception” might stem from characterizations of Obamacare as socialism.
Posted in Healthcare, National Politics, New | 28 Comments »
That’s Not What I Meant!
How lame is it to claim that the video was taken completely out of context when it contains several minutes of context? “This” Constitution is “near and dear” to him:
Am I the only one that feels like the sad narrative isn’t going to work this time?
Posted in Healthcare, National Politics, New | 7 Comments »
Why state A-G’s have a duty to oppose Obamacare
In response to the claim that the lawsuit brought by 13 state attorneys general is a “waste of taxpayers’ money,” the Missoulian offers my op-ed on the subject here.
Posted in Constitution, Healthcare, Law, National Politics, New, Policy | 1 Comment »
Obama Wants To Save Your Fat Ass By Wasting Resouces Through Regulaton
Yes, they had to pass the bill to find what’s in it.
Captain Ed talks about the brand spanking new regulations for nutrition disclosure with a Minnesota restaurateur.
Posted in Healthcare, National Politics, New, Policy | No Comments »
More from MSNBC
In follow up to Dave’s video:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Posted in Congress, Healthcare, National Politics, New, Policy, Tea Party | 51 Comments »
The press: Op-Eds from la-la land
Today’s Missoulian published a rant by David Allan Cates attacking Congressman Denny Rehberg and other Republicans for allegedly “wanting to shrink government – or to make it disappear altogether.” Cates also attacks our “unregulated private system” of health care. Government, though, according to Cates is wonderful: It “elevates us out of the jungle,” “builds roads and railroads,” “makes our food and our air travel safer,” etc. etc. (It also kills people by the millions, but let that pass….)
As a negative “Republican utopia,” he points to miserable Honduras – “a country where free markets are unchallenged” with “giant slums,” etc. etc.
Montana editors are right to try to publish a range of opinions on their editorial pages, but I’ve long contended they have an obligation to ensure that what they offer as responsible opinion has at least some connection to facts. No one with the least familiarity with American health care, for example (including Cates), can really believe it is “unregulated.” On the contrary, federal and, to a lesser extent, state governments structured much of the current U.S. health care system, and the insurance and health care industries are among the most regulated anywhere. (Just try to get a new drug through the FDA, for instance!)
Nor is Honduras a particularly small-government country. Government spending amounts to over a quarter of GDP, well within international norms. Indeed, this figure is a good deal more than U.S. levels during the period of our greatest prosperity and far more than nearby Costa Rica (16%), a nation that has left Honduras in the economic dust. (Maybe Honduras’ government is too big rather than too small.)
Finally, neither Rehberg or practically any other Republicans want to “make government disappear.” His actual voting record reveals Rehberg to be a moderate: In 2008, for example, the liberal American for Democratic Action credited him with voting “liberal” 40% of the time.
In addition to getting his basic facts straight, Cates needs to learn that government is like water. Some is necessary for life. A little too much can drench you. Still more can kill you.
And Montana editors need to offer op-eds that, whatever their point of view, have at least some connection with factual reality.
Posted in Budget, Economy, Healthcare, Ideology, International Politics, Liberalism, Markets, Media, National Politics, New, Policy | 3 Comments »
The “S” Word
Some suggest that President Obama and the Democrat Congress’ policies are shifting our economic system more and more toward socialism, if we’re not already there. The more liberal members of the mainstream media dismiss this as alarmist, and instead advocate in favor of what they call policies that are “fair.”
Posted in Budget, Congress, Freedom, Healthcare, Ideology, Liberalism, National Politics, New, Policy | 23 Comments »
A Swede tells us about government “health care”
I received the following note from Sweden. The author tells us about Swedes’ lousy experience with government medicine and how Swedes are conditioned to be averse to market solutions. He also offers a prediction: Despite the passage of “health care reform,” U.S. government control of health care will never actually come to pass. (Although I have his name, at his request I have withheld it.)
As you read this, remember that he is writing in what is for him a foreign language. I have italicized some juicy passages.
“I live in Sweden, and I remember when Hillary Clinton used to mention Sweden as a role model for American health care back when her husband was the president. I have noticed that Americans are always suckers for anything European, having been taught that Europeans are more sofisticated [sic] and wiser, the “old country,” and when you listen to American media it sounds like all Europeans think the same. They only publish the leftist opinions though. Sweden has the most cost-inefficient health care in the world, which is due to the government monopoly, for the same reasons why the Soviet Union’s GDP in 1990 was lower than that of Belgium.
“There are often stories about patients who die because they had to wait for months for a live-saving operation. You can’t sue the hospitals for this or any other malpractice, not even lethal ones; they just have an internal inquiry and maybe give a written reprimand to a doctor, and that’s it. Swedish nurses leave the country in droves to work in Norway and Germany. And the few private hospitals that have been allowed in the past ten years as an experiment, all get much better grades from patients in every category.
“Most Swedes are deadly afraid of privatizations, though. Even those
supposedly to the Right. (We have no conservatism in Sweden anymore; “conservative” is a bad word on the same level as “racist.”) When you are dependent on the government at every turn, you can’t imagine living without government money. Never mind that that money came from you in the first place. Swedes are taught that since the evil rich pay more taxes, the only democratic (sic) system is to pay for things through taxes. Otherwise the rich win. Funny thing is, the average Swede used to have close to the same purchasing power as the average American 25 years ago, but now we are in place 17 or something like that, but people still think we are better off than any other country in the world. They even look suspiciously on people who move to Germany, Italy or Britain, because any other country is bound to be more privatized in health care and other ways, and therefore they are of the devil. See what kind of attitude America has to look forward to? The greatest effect is on people’s minds.
“Anyway, what I wanted to write is, I don’t think a new [constitutional] Amendment is going to be needed in the U.S. after all. It seems to me the health centralization will take many years to implement, and meanwhile the country’s economy will turn so bad that you just won’t be able to afford it. I think a likely scenario for the U.S. will be a de-facto decentralization because there is just not enough money to keep the country together, not with all the costly policies you have today. Kind of like the Holy Roman Empire, where the states just … quit, first in practice and only much later officially. . . .
Posted in Economy, Freedom, Healthcare, Ideology, Markets, National Politics, New, Policy, Policy | 1 Comment »
Congress Codifies My Right To Give The IRS The Finger
Apropos my recent post about how the financial incentives of HCR will do the opposite of what is ostensibly its objective, the story just keeps getting worse – or better if you really have a mind to be a free-rider. Via Biggovernment.com:
Joint Committee on Taxation Confirms that ObamaCare Does Not Enforce Individual Mandate
[...]
However, it turns out that the Democrats who crafted this bill significantly – and I mean significantly – hamstrung the ability of the IRS or any other federal agency to enforce or collect on this mandate. Here is what the federal Joint Committee on Taxation had to say about this issue in a report released earlier this week:
Individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage in 2016 are subject to a penalty equal to the greater of: (1) 2.5 percent of household income in excess of the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year over the threshold amount of income required for income tax return filing for that taxpayer under section 6012(a)(1);67 or (2) $695 per uninsured adult in the household. The fee for an uninsured individual under age 18 is one-half of the adult fee for an adult. The total household penalty may not exceed 300 percent of the per adult penalty ($2,085). The total annual household payment may not exceed the national average annual premium for bronze level health plan offered through the Exchange that year for the household size…
The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.
According to a footnote in the report, “subtitle F of the Code” is the portion of the tax code which grants the IRS the authority to assess and collect taxes. In other words, as the law is written the federal government has no legal authority to enforce this mandate, nor will it have any recourse to collect any penalties that go unpaid!
So it looks like the worse that can happen, at least until they change the law, is that you get a black mark on “your permanent record.” I know your grade school principal warned you about “your permanent record.” They go further saying:
Because without an effective mechanism of enforcing the individual mandate, the entire system is likely to collapse. (The individual mandate is the “third leg of the stool” as many a liberal has been pointing out for months.) Given that the bill also bans insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, WHY WOULD ANYONE OBTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE PRIOR TO NEEDING IT? This was already going to be a problem with the relatively low cost of the penalty, but take away any meaningful enforcement of it and it is a complete and total joke.
The net result will be an ever increasing shift of healthcare costs on to those who remain in the insurance system (or to tax payers), and possibly even the bankruptcy of the insurance industry. Given all the double-talk the past year over the public option, and the demonizing of private insurers, it is hard not to wonder whether this was by design. But let’s give our Democratic friends the benefit of the doubt, in which case this represents an inexcusable level of incompetence from the people we have just entrusted with overseeing one-sixth of the economy. Nice job guys.
In other words, if you currently have health insurance and you keep it you’re about to get screwed as your premiums will go up as only those who need it really have an incentive to buy it.
Lesson: Never underestimate the stupidity of your government.
Posted in Healthcare, National Politics, New, Policy | 11 Comments »
Why the A-G should join the suit against Obamacare
I have received some e-mails asking (1) whether as the state’s constitutional law professor, Attorney-General Bullock or his office consulted me before making its decision and (2) what my own view is.
The answer to (1) is “no,” I was not consulted – and the decision not to do so is the A-G’s prerogative.
The answer to (2) is that, yes, I would have counseled signing onto the joint lawsuit (or bringing a separate suit, if he had reservations about the joint one). In fact, the implications of the health care bill for the state are so grave, I find it hard to understand why it should not be challenged. I’ve given the following partial response to the Bullock decision:
“I do not agree with Mr. Bullock’s reasons, nor with his conclusions. For one thing, as an engaged constitutional scholar I think the statement that ‘This is a conclusion that is shared by the vast majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, who have reviewed the issues’ is probably not true. And even if it were true, it should not be controlling.
“It is true, of course, that legal scholars are divided over whether the Supreme Court’s modern jurisprudence will uphold this law. They also are divided as to how certain key justices are likely to rule. But a division is not the ‘vast majority of legal scholars.’
“Even if it could be demonstrated that, say, 80% of legal scholars thought the bill wholly constitutional, this would not be a decisive reason against bringing suit. It is well-known in the legal academy that the “vast majority of legal scholars” are well to the Left of the Supreme Court majority that will be deciding this issue. Moreover, law professors in particular are notorious for subordinating their scholarly objectivity to whatever case they want to make. Law professors, unlike some other academics, usually do not write from an objective point of view, but to advance a case. Indeed, this is a longstanding dispute I have with most of my profession, since I believe we would be better to emulate the more objective standards that prevail in other academic fields. Law professors who write one article after another constructing theories about why the courts should be more liberal are not going to give an honest assessment of the constitutionality of this bill.
“There is also the point that some of the bill may pass muster under modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, while other parts do not. For example, most of spending provisions are likely to be upheld. But the constitutionality of mandates such as those in the bill has never been tested, and would seem to be at odds with at least one formulation of federal power issued by the modern Supreme Court. Similarly, there is a respectable argument that some of the financial penalties imposed are ”direct taxes” of the kind that require apportionment among the states. Whether the challenge to the constitutionality of these provisions will prevail, I do not know. But the arguments against them are eminently respectable, and should be raised.
“Further: Considering the welfare of the people of Montana, I would not make the same decision Mr. Bullock has made. In addition to the costs of this legislation to individuals, it will ultimately have severe consequences both to the state treasury and to the state-federal constitutional balance. Under those circumstances, it would seem to me that the A-G has an obligation to raise any tenable legal arguments, even if he thought defeat on a particular issue more probable than victory.”
Posted in Constitution, Healthcare, Law, Montana, National Politics, New, State Politics, Tea Party | 18 Comments »
A-G’s reasons for not challenging Obamacare
People who ask the Montana A-G to join the constitutional lawsuit against Obamacare are getting a form response. This is it:
“Thanks for expressing your concerns about the constitutionality of the recent health care legislation.
“We have reviewed the legal arguments that are being used to challenge the legislation, and have concluded that it is highly unlikely it will be found unconstitutional. This is a conclusion that is shared by the vast majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, who have reviewed the issues. As a result, Montana will not be joining the lawsuit that several state Attorneys General have brought.
“People can certainly disagree over whether the health care legislation is good policy. That does not mean, however, that the State of Montana should spend taxpayer money to file a lawsuit that we do not believe has legal merit. Like the Republican and Democratic Montana Attorneys General who served before me, I try hard to keep my personal political beliefs out of legal decisions.
“My staff and I are busy and working hard to protect the interests of Montanans. The courts will have the opportunity to judge the merits of the challenges to the health care legislation without the involvement of Montana. If we are correct and the courts reject the challenges, we will have saved valuable Montana taxpayer resources. In the unlikely event that the Courts declare the legislation unconstitutional, their decision will apply to all Americans – including all Montanans – even though we weren’t a party to the lawsuit.”
Posted in Constitution, Healthcare, Law, Montana, National Politics, New, Tea Party | 6 Comments »
Randoms
I have resigned myself to the passage of the job-killing, cost increasing, innovation stifling, deficit expanding, p.o.s. legislation known as “health care reform.” Of course I will be eligible immediately for a share of government largess since I have two kids who are over 18, under 26 and not currently in school. Since we’re insured though my wife’s group policy, which doesn’t charge more for a family of three than a family of 100 my kids can drop their current insurance and help further the burden of taxpayers in the Missoula County Public School District. Not that we will but the government will provide us the incentive to do so. And since the decision isn’t really mine – as the primary beneficiary is my apolitical spouse – those two kids may just get the dental care (including orthodontics) that they have been wanting. I’m sure it will be reflected in a rate increase next January as well as other teachers figure this out.
But let’s say the bill passes and won’t be repealed (which is my default position.) What do I really think will be the upshot? I don’t think it will be of everything good in America. It will surly kill off much innovation while the national tab for heath care will continue to increase at a pace that far exceeds inflation. We’ll muddle through simply because moving to a more socialist social contract doesn’t (immediately) kill the economy. It just makes it constipated and slows economic growth and, thus, the overall increase in the standard of living.
I watched the president make a number of his permanent campaign speeches over the month and we will know him as a liar in 20 years. In fact we’ll know it as soon as congress takes up the doctor fix that was negotiated with the AMA a year ago. What is most repugnant is the obscene level of logrolling and the duping of the American public by budgetary gaming of the CBO. All of it supports the call for term limits.
I’m much less optimistic that some that the GOP will take over either chamber in November than many of my Republican friends are. The GOP may be showing well in the polls now but they have a long way to go to make the public believe that they’re not just another color of scum that the current majority is. The good news is that the public seems to understand to a better degree that trusting either party is for fools.
I’ve come to the conclusion that our political economy will become increasingly inefficient. Unlike our European counterparts, our central government has a much more disparate and disbursed number of micro-economies to manage and we’re seeing increasing diseconomies of scale as we try to put in policies that are as good for New York and California as they are for Montana and Mississippi. I think this bolsters the argument for more robust federalism and I believe that it’s the only path to a more effective form of government.
Looking for a silver lining, I’m encouraged by the law suites that will be filed as soon as this bill is passed by Virginia, Florida and Idaho. Obama and his congressional leadership may well finally put to test the constraints on the Federal government originally envisioned in the 10th Amendment. One can hope even if the waxing of Justice Kennedy’s ideological much could prove my “ought” is different than our “is.” Libertarian optimism sometimes knows no bounds.
At the end of the day, and I know that some here will have a hard time believing this, I am now much more cynical about government now than I was a year ago. I know that’s hard to fathom but it’s true. The only thing that assuages that is the fact that we’ve seen a very vocal protest from middle America who seems to be waking up to the fact that the weight of the Leviathan is making the legs of the system starting to buckle. Let’s hope enough of them wake up in time to stop this insanity before the system collapses.
Posted in Budget, Congress, Healthcare, National Politics, New, Policy, Tea Party, The White House | 14 Comments »
Succinct
Here you can find Byron York’s succinct explanation of the procedural hurdles surrounding the health care reform bill.
Posted in Healthcare, New | 1 Comment »