The Supreme Court's Review of ObamaCare

Yesterday's unsurprising announcement that the Supreme Court will review ObamaCare next June brought out a tidal wave of punditry.

I heard everything from predictions that the law, or at least the mandatory health insurance purchase component, will be rejected on a 5-4 vote, to Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton's health care so-called expert, claiming that it won't even matter what happens to the mandate. Reinhardt's comments were especially odd, since so much effort was expended by Democrats to use the mandate to fulfill Congressional attempts, amid a lot of outright falsehoods, to have the CBO score the bill, which will add 30 million people to the insured roles, as actually reducing US health care expenses.

On a general note, it feels as if one is living through a court decision like Dred Scott, Brown, Roe, or Marbury. One thing on which everyone can agree is that this is likely the acid, final test for our nation of the unfortunately vaguely-worded commerce clause.

It was disappointing to read Appellate Judge Silber's naive statement that the courts have to presume that Congress passes only Constitutional laws.

Is that not a basis for term limits on the federal bench, all by itself?

On Bret Baier's Fox News program, conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer described the four parts on which the Supreme Court will rule on the law:

- the Constitutionality of the mandate under the Commerce clause
- severability of the mandate from the remainder of the law
- standing of those bringing suit a priori to paying the tax for failing to purchase coverage
- Medicare funding related to the bill

Thus, several combinations of outcomes could occur from rulings on the various elements under consideration.

Justice Kagan is not recusing herself, although it is clear she was involved in support of the law as Solicitor General for the administration. However, one has to pragmatically ask if it would really do any good to have a 4-4 tie on these components. Or if the arm-wrestling over who would be a replacement ninth Justice would do the nation any good, either.

I'm a big proponent of things happening for a reason, and people receiving the justice they deserve. On that basis, if Kagan's participation results in the key rulings of the Commerce clause/mandate being upheld, and the it being severable anyway, so be it. Americans will reap what they sowed by electing the president and Congress that passed this monstrosity.

But, back to summer of 2012.

Some hold that if the mandate fails, and it isn't severable, so the law is unconstitutional, then Wonderboy can run away from the whole issue and claim no harm was done.

That's ridiculous on its face. As Krauthammer noted on Baier's program last night, Obama did nothing else of import for the past three years but pass ObamaCare and waste nearly a trillion dollars on useless 'stimulus' spending. Nobody's going to forget he spent so much time and capital on this law.

Will he, if so defeated by the court, then turn to run against the GOP House and the Supreme Court? Perhaps, but I don't think that will cut any ice with the independents who elected him.

The more interesting question is how a Supreme Court affirmation of the first two points will affect the November election. I suspect it will galvanize support for the COP presidential candidate and its Senate candidates, in hopes of overturning the whole mess.

The second-order issue then becomes how this plays out if Romney, the original architect of the ObamaCare approach in Massachusetts, is nominated by the GOP? Won't he appear hypocritical for railing against the Court and a plan he basically signed into law as a state governor?

However those mechanics play out, I think it's more instructive to see this as perhaps the final test of the Commerce clause as capable of completely gutting the Constitution which our Founders intended. If the Supreme Court greenlights this last firewall against Congress essentially being given the right to pass any law as Constitutional because the Commerce clause is omnipotent, we will wake up the next day to a different America. And the only way the prior one will be restored will be via a Constitutional amendment specifically altering the Commerce clause to remove its elasticity and overturn decades of bad law underpinning its misuse.

It could well be that we have to endure more liberal attacks on the Constitution, and perhaps another four or more years, in order to build sufficient support for a broadscale, Constitutionally-based roll back of what has been a 110 year battle to undermine the deliberately-minimal federal powers originally provided in the Constitution.

However, at this particular point in our nation's history, our economic position won't sustain the ramifications of  a liberal Democratic victory on ObamaCare by the Supreme Court.

On Challenging RomneyCare

Last Thursday, the Wall Street Journal's lead staff editorial discussed the need for Mitt Romney to reconcile various statements and actions of his regarding Massachusetts' RomneyCare, ObamaCare, and what he would do if elected president.

Specifically, the editorial observed,

"Mr. Romney has every right to cling to theories that were flawed in conception and have proven false in practice, though the rest of the GOP field has the responsibility to challenge his canned answers. The mental contortions that his health-care record requires need to be dissected- the way Mr. Obama will do if Mr. Romney is the nominee- to give GOP voters a chance to weigh the political liabilities that his candidacy might pose in 2012.

Or, if he is the nominee and if he is elected, to drive him to reject the Romney-Care model in favor of patient-centered, market-driven health-care reform. Mr. Romney laid out such a plan in Ann Arbor in May, even as he now evinces an unaffordable faith that government must pay to reduce the uninsured rate."

A few lines on, the piece waggishly notes that Romney supports a market-based health-care system "everywhere except Massachusetts."

All joking or sarcasm aside, I'm pleased that a major media outlet has finally, explicitly noted Romney's tortured, conflicted positions on this topic over the past decade and calls for him to make a clarifying explanation of his current beliefs. As well as the reasons why he's changed his mind, if so, or, if not, why not.

But I disagree with the Journal editorial staff that other GOP candidates should be challenging "his canned answers."

Isn't that what the media are for? To hold candidates accountable for their positions- past or, if now different, present?

I'd prefer other GOP candidates to stick to their own campaigns and positions. If they want to highlight their differences with Romney's ideas- if they can figure out what those are- and why theirs are better, fine.

But it seems a breach of Reagan's 11th Commandment for other candidates to just open fire on Mitt. This is precisely the sort of thing about which Brett Baier should be grilling Mitt in his "Center Seat" segment.

If the major media, either in interviews, so-called debates or other formats, can't do this, for what are they any good in this campaign season?

Herman Cain's 1994 Townhall Debate with Bubba Clinton

Here's the YouTube clip of GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain taking on Bill Clinton in a townhall meeting in 1994, when the latter was pushing HillaryCare.

Notice Clinton going white and his mouth semi-grimacing as Cain shreds Bubba's government-mandated healthcare dreams. Clinton tries to dance his way out of this at the end by spewing some numbers, suggesting that Cain didn't correctly discount health care costs for part-time workers.

Funny, I never heard Clinton come back to tell us that Cain was wrong.

But Clinton's deflated look on camera is just priceless, isn't it?

More Consequences from ObamaCare- But Are They Unintended?

Karl Rove wrote a nice editorial in the Wall Street Journal last week summarizing the latest estimates of how many currently-insured Americans who are covered through their jobs will be losing that coverage under ObamaCare. It's not pretty. But is it unintended?

Rove presented the financial math, explaining that company-paid health care for a family of four is an average $9,773, while the penalty for dumping such coverage will only be- initially- $2,000. Of course more than merely today's uninsured will end up with federal coverage.

Last year, Douglas Holtz-Eakin estimated that 35 million American workers would have their health care insurance dropped by their employers. The National Center for Policy Analysis weighed in with their estimate of  "87 million to 117 million" such newly-uninsured employees. Now McKinsey estimates the number to be between 80 million and 100 million.

The original Congressional estimate was just 24 million workers being shunted to the federal option.

Rove then went on to quantify the extra costs these larger estimates imply for ObamaCare. Holtz-Eakin's number would add about $200B to the originally-estimated $500B cost, the NCPA's larger number would add $2T for the program's first decade. These added expenses come on top of what was initially, but fraudulently, claimed to be a deficit-reduction bill. In reality, when Medicare cost savings double-counting are eliminated and various other taxes unrelated to health care are stripped out, the law obviously will be a net new cost to the federal budget.

Rove's point was simply that it's going to be much more expensive.

My point is that the expected discharge of perhaps as many as 100 million workers, or nearly a third of the US population, into the new federal program, will effectively end private health care insurance. But if you think that measely $2,000 fine per worker is going to remain fixed, think again.

Once Congress and the various new agencies charged with implementing ObamaCare get a sense of how much unanticipated, but, I believe, actually welcomed new participants are dumped by corporate America, they will duly announce a need to increase the per/worker penalty in order to pay for the extra plan participants.

Maybe the penalties will rise to the average loaded cost per/person of the federal policies. In which case you'd have corporate America maneuvered into not only paying what they paid before ObamaCare, but now forced to pay more, uncontrollably, via penalties, while the federal government exercised total control over the health care choices of the bulk of Americans.

I wish I could write that I believe this predicted tide of workers dumped into ObamaCare was unexpected, but I think it was both expected and desired.

Forget about Wonderboy's promise that under his bill "if you like your health care, you can keep it." He knew that was never going to be true, and I believe he made sure that ObamaCare was designed so that corporations would make it a lie. Watch him avoid responsibility and blame corporations for dumping their workers in order to save money, once again depicting them as evil.

Makes you rethink wanting to be a shareholder of any publicly-held US firm, doesn't it, when Wonderboy is obviously out to ruin them?

Sean Hannity Tosses Softballs to Mitt Romney On Healthcare

I caught Mitt Romney's appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News program last week on the evening of the day he formally announced his presidential candidacy. To say I was disappointed is an understatement.

Hannity behaved shamefully. What he did was toss some softball questions at Romney concerning the former Massachusetts governor's failed health care plan. The plan is eating up increasing percentages of the state's budget. Last I read, it had grown by something like 15 percentage points over prior spending. The state is resorting to a care pricing and rationing board to try to limit cost growth.

Meanwhile, Hannity asked Romney generically about the plan. Romney responded, to paraphrase his key points,

'It wasn't the perfect plan, but it was the best we were going to get. I know what I'd change, if anyone wants to ask me. Obama should have asked me what to do differently before he passed Obamacare.....We included a mandate for coverage because what we had was some people who could afford care coming into emergency rooms to get free treatment and expecting the state to pay for it. We said, 'oh no, you're not going to do that.'......So really the mandate is a conservative tenet to enforce individual responsibility.'

Say what?????

Does anyone really believe that last statement? It's not credible at all. I don't think anyone seriously thinks Massachusetss' health care cost problems were caused by wealthy Boston Brahmins skipping down to the local public hospital to hit the ER for long term care, do you?

But Hannity, having lost Gingrich as his conservative presidential touchstone, is apparently clinging to Mitt now.

Here's what I wish he would have asked Romney:

"Governor, Massachusetts has experienced tremendous cost overruns far beyond your projections when you signed Romneycare. How do you explain that?

The current president is going to use Romneycare against you to blunt any attacks on Obamacare. What can you possibly say to refute his attacks?

Do you really expect conservatives and independents to believe that your signing a health care bill with an individual mandate allows you to stand as a conservative?

Why isn't the true conservative approach to drop a mandate, and simply say, 'no coverage, no care. Period?"

Hannity's shameful allowance of Romney to evade tough questions about his Romneycare doesn't do any good for Romney or the GOP. What better place for Romney to come to grips with the inevitable campaign-killing questions about the failed Massachusetts system than a friendly conservative program on Fox News?

If you ask me, Romney displayed the shallow slickness that cost him the nomination in 2008. Hasn't he learned anything? Hopefully we voters will remember what he learned then and dump Romney this time, too.

Ignore Massachusetts' RomneyCare- Vermont Goes Full Speed Ahead On Single-Payer Healthcare

You'd think that Massachusetts' travails with RomneyCare would cause any other state to think twice before attempting to move to a more government-run health care sector.

So it was surprising to read in an edition of the Wall Street Journal last week that Vermont

"is moving one step closer to a goal of its Democratic governor: a state-run health plan that would insure most of its 625,000 residents."

Well, first, it is Vermont. The only state, I believe, to send an avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders, to the US Senate.

But somehow, single-payer health care in the land of Ethan Alan's Green Mountain Boys seems, well, unpatriotic. And at odds with the idea of rugged individuals out in the hills for which the state is named.

Alas, that was then. Now it's government medical care for all.

The Journal article provides anecdotes describing various parties' reactions to the governor's plan.

"Darcie Johnston, founder of Vermonters for Health Care Freedom...says a single payer-style system would usher in the largest tax increase in the state's history. "It hasn't worked in multiple countries where it's been tried," she said."

"In liberal-leaning Vermont, even Republicans in the state legislature are open to the idea of emulating a single-payer system, though they quibble with how it is being set up."

"Instead of paying premiums, employers and workers likely would subsidize the plan through taxes. Gov. Shumlin says the administrative simplification of having one payer would save the state $500 million a year."

According to the Journal, about 7%, or slightly less than 44,000 of Vermont's residents currently lack health care. Apparently just giving them tax credits or vouchers with which to buy health insurance is a non-starter for Vermont's state legislators and governor.

Better, instead, to emulate Massachusetts, drive medical care providers out of the state with lower reimbursements and bureaucratic oversight and care allocation, while experiencing soaring state spending on the experiment.

What's that old line about insanity- trying the same thing over and over, while expecting different results?

Peggy Noonan Goes Socialist

I managed to make it through Peggy Noonan's weekend editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Maybe it was due to the picture of a thoughtful Paul Ryan, chin on hand, that drove me forward.

The editorial was nothing particularly new or special. It was, after all, Peggy Noonan, herself now long in the tooth, with very little, if anything worthwhile to express anymore.

Instead, Noonan plumped for socialism with this passage about older Americans and health care,

"Rep. Paul Ryan was at the summit, soldiering on. His main problem on Medicare is that people fear the complexities and demands of a new delivery system.

People who draw up legislation, people capable of mastering the facts of the huge and complicated federal budget, often think other people are just like them....But normal people don't wear green eyeshades...But normal people are more likely to sit slouched at the kitchen table with their head in their hands. "Oh no, another big decision, another headache, 50 calls to an insurance company, another go-round with the passive-aggressive phone answerer who, even though she's never met me, calls me Freddy as she puts me on hold.

Here's the great thing about Medicare: You turn 65 and it's there. They give you a card and the nurse takes it."

In the next paragraph, Noonan contradicts herself on that salient last point, noting that, even now, due to low reimbursement rates, some doctors refuse to take "the card."

It's actually far worse than that. I have an acquaintance who had to help an aged relative with Medicare-covered treatment for an ailment. The amount of red tape, paperwork and time spent arguing with various Medicare officials was not to be believed. The relative was sent bills for erroneous out-of-pocket expenses running to tens of thousands of dollars. Days were spent, often in increments of 3-4 hours, either speaking or on hold with government bureaucrats at various offices throughout the region and Washington.

But Noonan's larger mistake is to portray the insulation of Americans from making their own decisions on how to spend their own money on health insurance. If people can buy homes, homeowners and car insurance, surely they are capable of and ought to take an interest in their health insurance, as well.

That's why allowing market forces to compete by providing differing price points, service and quality levels of health insurance is a good thing. Instead of one take-it-or-leave-it government-run, unresponsive health insurance system, multiple private insurers will compete for customers in an open market where bad performance will cost them customers.

It's a sad day when one of Ronald Reagan's speechwriters plumps for government health care. Her former boss was the modern paragon of individual freedom and self-determination.

Now Noonan is arguing for seniors to just be given a "card" and have others make their decisions about their money for them.

RomneyCare Plunges Ever Deeper Into Trouble In Massachusetts

Wednesday's Wall Street Journal had an article detailing the continuing woes of Massachusetts' RomneyCare.

Now, a new bill is being proposed to require unions to toss their members into the system. And a rationing board is being proposed, while medical insurance costs continue to spiral out of control- even higher than several economists estimate it would have without all the interference.

In short, as the article explains, the entire state's health care sector has become a giant, state-sized Medicare disaster.

So it's chilling to me that Ann Coulter proclaimed Romney the probable and desirable GOP presidential candidate for 2012, if Chris Christie won't run.

Well, I live in New Jersey, so I see and hear Christie more than most. He isn't finished here, doesn't feel he's actually accomplished what he set out to do, and, frankly, isn't ready for the presidency. And says so.

Romney, on the other hand, is no Ronald Reagan. He lost the 2008 nomination race badly. RomneyCare will continue to dog him. And, frankly, despite how glib, intelligent and presidential he can appear, he still scares me to death as the GOP version of Jimmy Carter. A former governor who is, by and large, a technocrat.

Let's hope a Midwestern governor, perhaps Pawlenty or Daniels, chooses to run.

States Enforcement of ObamaCare

Mitch Daniels, current governor of Indiana, wrote an editorial this week in the Wall Street Journal entitled An ObamaCare Appeal From the States.

Daniels, a Republican, wrote of several things he would like to have changed in the new health care legislation, suggesting that, without state participation in key areas, the federal government will founder.

For example, he noted that the government, in the absence of a "majority of states" participating, was unable to effectively create health care insurance exchanges for "high-cost, existing conditions." HHS had to do it. Daniels wrote,

"it went poorly, with costs far above predictions and only a tiny fraction of the expected population signing up."

So Daniels theorizes that, if enough states band together to refuse to help the federal government operate and enforce the new law, it simply won't happen. In a sentiment reminiscent of statements on Fox News of former Judge Andrew Napolitano, Daniels notes that the law simply assumed that the states would carry out the federal government's directives for free.

Daniels' editorial suggests to HHS that Indiana will only participate if the federal agency gets independent estimates of the administrative costs and agrees to fully reimburse his state for said costs.

It brings to bear an interesting point, i.e., can the federal government simply require states to spend money to comply with all of the costly provisions of legislation like ObamaCare?

Judge Vinson Rules: ObamaCare UnConstitutional!

It's official! US Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson has ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional.

According to various sources I've read and heard, his is the most authoritative ruling on the case. Some detractors are claiming it's really just still '2-2,' with two other judges refusing to hear the case, and the Virginia judge also ruling against the law, but less expansively.

Vinson's ruling is clearly a product of his awareness of context and deep reasoning. It runs 78 pages and makes references to the government's own language in their defense, as well as Madison's Federalist Papers No. 51, his Constitutional Convention notes, and John Marshall's rulings.

Essentially, Vinson finds that choosing not to buy health insurance is a non-activity and, thus, can't be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause. Then he finds that the government's other argument, the Necessary and Proper Clause, a/k/a the Elastic Clause, also falls short.

Because the Democrats who wrote this law didn't see fit to include any sort of severability language, Vinson appropriately struck down the entire law, in deference to and accordance with the government's analogy to "a finely crafted watch." Allowing for the urge to be sick when comparing ObamaCare to a finely crafted watch, Vinson showed remarkable restraint in refusing to attempt to legislate from the bench, and simply tossing the whole mess out.

The pundits are all over this one as to whether the parties will agree to expedite its appeal directly to the Supreme Court, or not. And whether Elena Kagan will behave responsibly and recuse herself, though nobody can force her to do so. If not, it's obvious to everyone this will go down as a 5-4 decision, turning on which way the unpredictable Justice Kennedy will blow.

Regardless, it certainly has given new life to the various states which are refusing to plan for the law, and Mitch McConnell's efforts to get a floor vote on repeal in the Senate.

I forget which Congressman it was, a Democrat, who said that, basically, Congress may pass anything it wishes. Perhaps it's the nature of a chamber designed to be the repository of hot-tempered, less-educated and -sensible elected Representatives that one of its number would make such a callous, egregious statement. Perhaps that's why having a branch of career jurists is, when well-functioning, so necessary.

For once, it seems that the Judicial branch of our federal government may actually do its job and prevent Congress from a final, lethal trampling of the Constitution.

Democrats' Lies Regarding The Financial Consequences of Repealing Obamacare

It's been very frustrating to see Congressional Democrats and their out-of-office colleagues lying to the public every chance they get regarding the true costs of, and repeal of, Obamacare.

No less a public moment than John Boehner's assumption of the House gavel as Speaker allowed Frisco Nan to give an uncharacteristic major speech upon her demotion, complete with lies involving the cost of the recent health care monstrosity.

Howard Dean has been hectoring every conservative in sight on every cable program on which he can appear with lies involving the alleged $230B 'cost' of the repeal.

But the facts are quite different.

What one needs to understand is that the CBO is directed to assess the economic consequences of the bills it is given, not the reasonability of the bills' assumptions or projections.

In the case of Wonderboy's health care, all sorts of financial deceptions were employed to game an alleged reduction of government spending by imposing public health care and covering millions of new citizens.

Among the deceptions were:

-double counting $398B Medicare and Social Security revenues
-moving the so-called 'doctor fix' into a separate bill, so that the added-back costs of not imposing Medicare program cost controls on doctors' fees was not included in the health care bill.
-adding unrelated income tax hikes on dividends and capital gains, as well as other taxes, so that the bill would appear to be generating government revenues.
-counting 10 years of tax levies in the bill but only 6 years of provided health care services.
-failing to provide for the landslide of dumped, formerly corporate-provided health care consumers into apparently-cheaper government plans, thus overwhelming services and causing losses on the unrealistically-low initial government premiums.

The gross total sums of these financial deceits make any claims of saving taxpayers money ridiculous and simply false.

What's really disappointing is that we have elected officials, and former elected officials, widely spreading these lies as if they were solemn facts. No matter that these Democrats know they are abetting US financial self-destruction. The goal of a universal, public health care entitlement is more important to them than the continued health of the Republic.

A Detailed View of Medicare's Destruction of US Medical Care

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal included an eye-opening editorial by Richard Hannon, a Blue Cross Blue Shield (of Arizona) SVP, concerning how Medicare contributed to the destruction of US medical care.

Hannon's father-in-law was a doctor. The type of doctor whom Hannon describes as 'a Marcus Welby, M.D.' type who made house calls and treated the poor sick either for free, or for payment in kind. He writes,

"I remember my father-in-law, a real-life Dr. Welby, telling me the exciting news that the federal government was going to start paying him to see seniors- patients who before he had seen for the proverbial chicken (or nothing at all). That fabulous deal was Medicare."

Right at this point, I thought about prior posts I've written on this or my other blog concerning how Medicare was a rather stupidly-designed knock-off, for medicine, of the 1930s Social Security program. They both share direct federal government intrusion into otherwise-private behaviors, and a 'common pot' approach to social services provision. That is, social security has a single general fund out of which payments are made, without any limits on individual payments or an ability to assign individual ownership of assets.

In the case of Medicare, just from Hannon's example, it's easy to see how wrong things went from the very start. Rather than have government, as a third party, pay the doctor, why didn't Washington's political hacks simply means-test Americans for vouchers to be used either to buy health insurance or to fund a health savings account, out of which to pay for medical care?

Hannon continues by describing how Medicare's costs ballooned so exorbitantly that, in 1966, Congress estimated the program's 1990 cost would be $12B, which was laughably under the actual 1990 cost of $107B!

Then came cost controls. But Hannon provides details that simply defy reason and logic,

"To fix the cost problem, Medicare in 1992 began using the "resource based relative value system" (RBRVS), a way of evaluating doctors based on factors such as education, effort and specialized training. But the system didn't consider factors such as outcomes, quality of service, severity or demand.

Today most insurance companies use the Medicare RBRVS because it is perceived as objective. As a result of RBRVS, specialists- especially those who perform a lot of procedures- do extremely well. Primary-care doctors do not."

It makes you want to cry, doesn't it? Most sensible people wouldn't design such a stupid system. And they'd certainly include outcomes and relative demand or incidence of condition and disease when creating algorithms to price medical care.

Hannon goes on to trace the decline of the GP, or, as they are now called, primary-care doctor, under this pricing system. And to lay the demise of good, preventative primary care at the feet of Medicare's centrally planned system, replete with formulas, data, and abstracted views of medicine.

His editorial is engaging for its combination of a personal anecdote which captures so well the innocent hopes even doctors initially held for the centrally-operated federal government medical juggernaut which would ultimately warp, then destroy the simpler, less-expensive world of medical care that I knew in my youth.

Andy Griffith's Shameless Misleading Ads for ObamaCare

[Reposted with working video links.]

I couldn't believe it, at first, when I saw this recent pro-ObamaCare ad by Andy Griffith.



Aside from looking like a stroke victim, Griffith, or, more accurately, the Democratic administration using him, are trading on his folksy, trustworthy image. Here, honestly, I think he looks senile. The stupid grin and misinformation about just what ObamaCare will do to the country. It's truly shameful what our government is doing, creating and running ads to confuse and mislead seniors, claiming that there's a free lunch to be had in the new, expensive health care laws.

Here's what I think of when I see that ad....Andy Griffith as Lonesome Rhodes in Elia Kazan's 1957 classic A Face in the Crowd.





Scary clips, aren't they? Reminding us of Cass Sunstein's remarks about people being like Homer Simpson, needing help making choices.

And to help you let government make those choices for you, we see a new face of propaganda- ol' Andy drawling about how great ObamaCare is going to be. Do you think he even understands what it is?

States Legislate Against ObamaCare

One of the last of my Wall Street Journal reads from my absence early this month was the lead staff editorial on August 5th entitled Show Me ObamaCare.

The lead sentence states,

"The political revolt against ObamaCare came to Missouri Tuesday, with voters casting ballots three to one against the plan in its first direct referendum.

Missouri's Proposition C annulled the "individual mandate" within state lines, or the requirement that everyone buy insurance or else pay a tax. Liberals are trying to wave off this embarrassment, but that is hard to do when the split was 71.1% in favor in a state John McCain won by a mere 0.1% margin. The anti-ObamaCare measure carried every county save St. Louis and Kansas City with 668,000 votes, yet just 578,000 Republicans cast a ballot in the concurrent primaries."

The editorial went on to make a major point about how unelected bureaucrats will, under ObamaCare's provisions, define what "health care" is in America. This involves, among other things, defining the elements of "medical loss ratios," which are the measures by which the costs of delivering care, e.g., expenses for capital and people, are meant to be controlled.

But my interest in the piece was mostly about this state challenge to the federal law.

Will the federal government seek to moot or overturn this Missouri law under supremacy, by which federal law automatically supersedes state laws?

Will such action incite further rage in Missouri, causing the election of anybody running against federal-level Democrats?

Would such action by the federal government cause even more support for the states' lawsuit against ObamaCare, as well as a wider, united move by states to amend the Constitution so that supremacy is radically redefined and limited, if allowed at all?

These are, I believe, all causes for hope and optimism concerning the American experiment. It would seem to be time for the people, through their states, which are the parties to the Constitution- which parties do NOT include the federal government, itself- to revisit the agreement and more explicitly place limits on federal power, as well as the ability of federal elected and appointed officials to become a permanent political careerist class.

ObamaCare Loses Its First Court Test

I was out of touch with most electronic and print media on August 4th, when the Wall Street Journal published Betsy McCaughey's editorial concerning the failure of ObamaCare to pass its first court test. Thus, I don't know if the loss was covered as such by the usual suspects in network and print media.

McCaughey provided detailed coverage of how the government's motion to dismiss was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson. He was quite specific in noting the unparalleled expansion of the so-called commerce clause by ObamaCare.

McCaughey noted, in contrast,

"Ms. Sebelius' motion to dismiss the case focused almost entirely on why requiring everyone to buy insurance would be good public policy. In other words, the ends justify the means."

Which is precisely why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution- to limit what government can do, since so many unconstitutional acts can be justified by their ends.

Reading McCaughey's piece was somewhat anger-inducing for me, as she catalogued the Supreme Court's laughable rulings in Wickard vs. Filburn (1942) and Gonzalez vs. Raich (2005) which so tremendously expanded the federal government's control over situations which were pretty clearly not interstate commerce.

To quote McCaughey, regarding Filburn,

"the Court ruled that the federal government could limit how much wheat a farmer can grow to feed his own animals.

Growing something for personal use doesn't seem like interstate commerce, said the justices, but individual decisions in the aggregate could have an impact on national markets."

So what?

"Having an impact on" isn't the same as actually conducting cross-state-border marketing or other business.

Given the roots of the basis on which ObamaCare was foisted on us, i.e., a few badly-reasoned, common-senseless precedents, it's exasperating to see that become the loopholed used to enslave all Americans by this bloated and unnecessary health care law.

Precedents have been overturned before. We should all hope this case arrives at the Supreme Court, to be used to overturn earlier commerce clause cases which violated the Constitution's meaning and intent. Then, again, it's going to be a swing vote situation, so don't hold your breath this time.

The Constitutionality of ObamaCare

The Wall Street Journal's weekend interview in this past Saturday's edition was with noted conservative Constitutional law scholar Randy Barnett.

Barnett gave a thorough explanation of his detailed views of the merits and likelihood of success of the several states' lawsuit against ObamaCare.

But what drew my attention were these passages from Barnett,

"When the Constitution was written, Mr. Barnett says, commerce was understood to mean "trade in things...goods...The Commerce Clause was really put there, essentially, to create a free-trade zone for the United States," not to give Congress power over all economic activity."

And, near the interview's end,

"Will his argument prevail? "If I want to bet actual money, I'll always bet the court upholds anything Congress does," Mr Barnett says."

When I read this, I realized that I believe our country has no hope for anything resembling an America like the one I knew growing up, without a Constitutional Convention.

Mr. Barnett, a serious conservative and champion of the original Constitution and individual liberty, believes that the Supreme Court will typically simply rubber stamp any foolish, illegal and unconstitutional law Congress sees fit to pass.

When someone like Barnett sees no hope for respect for the Constitution from Congress, it's time to rewrite and amend the Constitution to force it to.

At a minimum, to my earlier post on ten things I'd change in the Constitution, I'd now add a more specific rewrite of the Commerce Clause which also struck down and obliterated existing case law on the subject.

It appears that the Commerce Clause, as liberally interpreted by the Supreme Court, has become the first punch in a 1-2 combination that has essentially stripped the States of their significant powers. The next punch after the Commerce Clause is the Supremacy argument, which states that where the federal and a state government clash, federal law and rule trumps.

If we can't trust our courts to adhere to the Constitution, then we need to amend the Constitution to prohibit those rulings we've already seen the federal courts make in favor of the federal government, and, then, limit the courts, as well.

There appears to be no other way now to restore the limited government which the Framers designed in the Constitution.

MassachusettsCare & Mitt Romney's Presidential Aspirations

Last week, in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal, Joseph Rago gave a devastating accounting of Mitt Romney's Massachusetts care.

It seems that current governor Deval Patrick, without consulting his own state's insurance commissioner, went ahead and vetoed rate increases necessary to preserve the firms' financial integrity.

Thanks to that move, with which said commissioner disagreed, "the five major state insurers have so far collectively lost $116 million due to the rate cap."

Robert Dynan, the insurance commissioner, was quoted as stating, in a letter to his staff, that,

"This action was taken against my objections and without including me in the conversation....and that "there most likely will be a train wreck (or perhaps several train wrecks)." "

The Journal piece also notes, near its conclusion,

"Meanwhile, Richard Moore, a state senator from Uxbridge and an architect of the 2006 plan, has introduced a new bill that will make physician participation in government health programs a condition of medical licensure. This would essentially convert all Massachusetts doctors into public employees."

Makes you want to rush right out, sell your home, quit your job and move to the Bay State, doesn't it?

So as Patrick attempts to control the price of every scintilla of activity or good in the state's medical system, you have to wonder what the effect of this disaster will be on ol' Mitt's aspirations for 2012.

Personally, I think he's toast. Back in 2008, he was merely stuffy and arch. A bit too polished. But he sounded good.

Now, he has this albatross around his neck. Nevermind what Republicans will think- its the independents that will sink him, should his party be foolish enough to nominate him to run for President.

Nobody with a brain will let Romney go near the White House with this monstrosity in his governing past.

Berwick's Recess Appointment As Healthcare Rationer-In-Chief

Wasn't Wonderboy's administration supposed to be the nation's most transparent ever?

So why the recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to head Medicare and Medicaid? What's transparent about ducking a Senate confirmation hearing?

This little episode reconfirms that Wonderboy is, in fact, just another political hack who lies to project the image he desires.

In this case, it's obvious why Berwick was a recess appointment. With quotes like this, you understand why the administration couldn't risk a public hearing about Berwick,

"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

"The primary functions of heath regulation is "to constrain decentralized, individual decision making" and "to weigh public welfare against the choices of private consumers."

That last passage, from the Wall Street Journal, means individual control and choice over health care is gone. In Berwick's world, you are just a cog in society's centralized health care calculations.

Welcome to Orwell's world of 1984, etc.

Berwick idolizes Britain's socialized, public health care system, saying,

"I love it...such a seductress...a global treasure."

Another Wonderboy campaign promise broken. Another big lie revealed.

Democrats Brush Off Constitutional Challenges To Obamacare

Thursday's Wall Street Journal carried and editorial noting that Florida district court judge Roger Vinson denied the Justice Department's request for an extension to reply to the multi-state suit over Obamacare.

Never mind that a judge thinks it important to consider the constitutional question. The editorial quotes Frisco Nan as declaring the suit by 20 state AGs "frivolous."

Cabinet secretary Sebelius characterized it as "more to do with politics than with policy."

Never the less, Wonderboy's Justice gang is trying to slow-roll and delay the suit, hoping, no doubt, to drag it out so that it will fade from the public's memory.

Fortunately, judge Vinson observed that Justice possesses the not inconsiderable resources of the federal government.

So their homework is due, as planned. Should be interesting to read what they cook up, now that they are evidently under such time pressure and scarce resources.

WellPoint's Angela Braly Refutes Wonderboy's Lies

Thank God someone finally called Wonderboy on his bald-faced lies about health care in the US.

Angela Braly, CEO of WellPoint, a much-maligned health insurer, wrote a letter to our First Rookie over the weekend explicitly refuting his lies concerning WellPoint's actions towards women with breast cancer.

Wonderboy accused the firm, though not explicitly by name, in a radio address,

"when we found out that an insurance company was systematically dropping the coverage of women diagnosed with breast cancer, my administration called on them to put an end to this practice immediately."

Braly shot back, in her letter,

"I was disappointed to hear you repeat false information regarding WellPoint's coverage of breast cancer...To be absolutely clear: despite your claims, WellPoint does not single out women with breast cancer for rescission. Period."

Additionally, Braly requested to meet with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. This request has gone unmet and unanswered. Perhaps Sebelius is busy finding more lies to give to Wonderboy to tell the American people in his many public appearances.

As WellPoint notes, health insurance, being, well, insurance, is heavily regulated at the state level. There really isn't, and historically has not been a major role for the federal government in private health insurance.

Thus, presidential scapegoating is way over the top. Plenty of state regulatory commissions- 50, in fact....or 57, if you count the number of states the way Wonderboy does.

Once again, we see this administration bullying a private company. This time, by lying about the company's practices. Not misinterpreting, but simply lying about the company's actions.

What a friendly place the US has become to do business, eh?