Cuccinelli discusses today’s ruling, by U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. He explains what the decision means in terms of Constitutional limits, and what the next steps are in the appeal process. Apparently, there are ongoing negotiations with the Obama Justice Department about expediting the case straight to the Supreme Court:
Comments 12
This is not a precedent for severability. I’m no legal expert but I do believe various portions of McCain-Feingold have been declared unconstitutional.
Posted 14 Dec 2010 at 4:06 am ¶I still don’t get why you are so anti-reform. Surely you want to eliminate uncompensated care. There is no other way to do this other than by extending insurance coverage. It seems to me all you are doing is driving the argument towards a wider public option – there is no ‘free market’ in a world of older people, Medicare and the pre-existing condition of being a human being that will cover people equally. If all you are doing is hanging on to a purely ideological position regardless of long term consequences and rising inequality you should say so.
Posted 14 Dec 2010 at 4:25 am ¶It is refreshing to hear someone from Mr. Brown’s side of the argument admit that there “is no free market” in the healthcare realm. Usually the theme is “the free market has failed”. What proponents of Obamacare cannot do is make a convincing case that increased centralized planning will be able to allocate goods and services ‘fairly’ while increasing access to actual care, improving quality, and reducing costs. I would venture to say that the political left cannot even reach consensus on a definition of ‘fairness’ that has real world relevance.
Posted 14 Dec 2010 at 9:45 am ¶I’m going to concur w/ Seamus: Marc Brown has (finally!) taken off his mask and is letting his (red!) colors show–too bad the rest of the left isn’t as honest* about their views.
*Of course, at this point, Marc is regretting his formulation, but that’s what you get when you’re desperately grasping at straws. (Straws usually lumped together into facsimiles of men.)
Posted 14 Dec 2010 at 5:02 pm ¶I think you’ve misunderstood what I said – I said that your goal of a true free market in healthcare is impossible because of huge inequality in America, an ageing population dependent on Medicare, the fact that many people have chronic and pre-existing health conditions, and so on. No free market insurance system could ever offer a product that takes care of all with decent, affordable coverage, and certainly not without a mandate, which makes it non-free market immediately.
Anyway, as the opponents of health reform are now openly saying, the opposition is nothing to do with healthcare, but to an idealistic concept of freedom that takes no account of modern day reality. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
And it seems that this position is likely to hasten the extension of Medicare for all, so the opposition is likely to be counter-productive.
Posted 15 Dec 2010 at 3:18 am ¶“No free market insurance system could ever offer a product that takes care of all with decent, affordable coverage”
But of course, there is the rub, because we have never tried a free market insurance system. I did not misunderstand what Mr. Brown said at all. I was simply pointing out the irony of saying that a free market cannot supply fair and efficient insurance coverage when the U.S. has never had a health insurance market without substantial government regulation. Go back to the inception of major medical insurance plans. (cf. post-WWII tax code changes making employer-provided health benefits tax-free, and special dispensation given to the original Blue Cross and Blue Shield in the 1950′s, not to mention Medicare, Medicaid, EMTALA, HIPAA and all the other federal attempts to manage the unintended consequences of the prior governmental meddling). I’ve been in the woods enough to know that when you take a wrong path and are thrashing your way through an impenetrable thicket that your best chance of getting back on the right path is to reverse course and work your way back to the point at which you deviated from the correct path. Instead, Congress is merely redoubling its blundering efforts.
Posted 15 Dec 2010 at 10:47 am ¶Mr. Brown has demurred, so I would repeat the challenge for anyone in favor of increased federal involvement in health care (whether insurance or actual health care delivery) to make a convincing case that the government will be able to allocate goods and services ‘fairly’ while increasing access to actual care, improving quality, and reducing costs.
The short answer is that the convincing case is that every other western developed country does it. The other obvious point is that there can be no universal coverage without universal buy-in. It’s also inconceivable that anything as critical and complex as healthcare provision, physician training, drug development and safety etc could operate without societal intervention in regulation and standards, and indeed in funding. It’s also inconceivable that if you removed say Medicare and EMTALA you could pay for and organise care for millions without state intervention. If you really want to argue for the supremacy of a country that denies care based on pre-existing conditions, old age or sheer poverty then so be it – I’d like to hear it.
Posted 15 Dec 2010 at 4:46 pm ¶Batting from the left side of the plate, Brown looks at a 78 mph hanging curveball from Muldoon, closes his eyes tightly and takes a mighty swing…..and a miss! Strike three!! Grab some pine!!
(Note the subtle baseball analogy, as American as apple pie, hot dogs, individual choice, personal responsibility and proper roles of limited government!!)
Posted 15 Dec 2010 at 11:23 pm ¶So Muldoon gives up and offers no argument – not me who’s been struck out. Funny though that baseball and other American sports are highly regulated, not least for equality in terms of college picks. Looks like you’ve struck out again. But I’ll concede that there is considerable free market consumption of steroids.
Posted 16 Dec 2010 at 2:50 am ¶Muldoon’s original comment (#3 above) was: “What proponents of Obamacare cannot do is make a convincing case that increased centralized planning will be able to allocate goods and services ‘fairly’ while increasing access to actual care, improving quality, and reducing costs.” Still waiting for a qualified response that is ‘on-point’ (but not holding my breath).
Posted 16 Dec 2010 at 8:36 am ¶‘increased centralized planning will be able to allocate goods and services ‘fairly’ while increasing access to actual care, improving quality, and reducing costs.’
Well Muldoon, I’d say that Medicare does that well for the over 65s in the US. Without Medicare, millions of older Americans would be in serious trouble (or dead). Your host, David Catron, admits that Medicare is here to stay. So really that’s your starting point.
Posted 16 Dec 2010 at 12:49 pm ¶#7 “every other western developed country does it.”
#11 “Medicare does that well”
Well, Mr. Brown, I must admit that your analysis is without equal. I am amazed at the extent of your powers of reasoning and I must say that you are now high in my opinion. When it comes to health care policy you seem to be truly out standing in the field. I had been making the mistake of considering fiscal solvency/sustainability as a relevant feature of any potential solution but now I see the fallacy of that notion. I have no counter to an argument of this magnitude. I wonder if we could get Greece to print up some more Cloud Cuckooland play money and send it right on over to enable us to extend Medicare to the entire U.S. population. That (and a little pixie dust if we could only find some) should do the trick. I think I’ll rush down to be first in line to sign up. Thank you ever so much.
Posted 17 Dec 2010 at 10:33 am ¶P.S. I’ll give you the last word so that Catron can have his site back.
Post a Comment