We were going to rant and rave about today's federal court ruling out of the Eastern District of Virginia on this year's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). There are so many things about this law and the subsequent lawsuits to be pissed about that our pee brains approached overload status before we even started brainstorming and drawing our Venn Diagram. (Mrs. Vaughn was a stickler for the Venn in 8th grade English, and we haven't been able to so much as write a post-it note without it since then.)
So, rather than having our fourth meltdown of the week, we decided to forgo a drawn out post on today's ruling. Instead, we decided to tell you a story.
Anyway, one time while working for said Republican, we attended a policy primer, during which a group of local doctors promoted a universal, single-payer healthcare plan for Texas. After the primer, we casually discussed the pros and cons of such a plan with our staff legal counsel. Her main problem with universal coverage was the idea that people would be getting something for nothing. There would be free riders milking the system. There had to be some "personal responsibility," dammit! And, of course, that's all Republicans really want: for you to be responsible for yourself... And for you to not worship anyone who hasn't been crucified... And for you to not hump thy same-sex neighbor.
Here we are, several years later, and our former cohort's words are as fresh in our mind as they ever have been. Today a Republican (still closeted) judge held that the individual responsibility portion of the of the PPACA is unconstitutional. And Texas AG Greg "I'm Okay With Tort Lawsuits After I've Been Paralyzed From the Waist Down in a Bizarre Fallen Tree Limb Incident, but Not When Your Husband was Killed in a BP Refinery Explosion That Could Have Been Prevented" Abbott praised the decision. Of course he chimed in supporting the ruling; he's a fucking free ride*r.
So, let us get this straight: Republicans hate healthcare reform because it imposes individual responsibility on Americans to get their own go*ddamn healthcare, instead of milking the system and passing their medical bills on to everyone else? Isn't that what Republicans claim to want: individual responsibility? Ohhh!!! We forgot: personal responsibility is good when they say so; not when a black man does.
It's a lot to digest, we know. But for heaven's sake, watch where you're jogging while you think it over. Now, do as we say and not as we do, and have a great day!
The unchecked expansion of the commerce clause that lead to cases like Raich and Wickard was terifying. While it has allowed some great things to be accomplished and some great wrongs to be righted, the new bill went beyond the scope of the commerce clause in as much as it imposes an obligation to buy something from a private company.
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't whether the bill is a "good idea," - Congress makes those decisions and it clearly has decided that the bill is a good idea. The question is whether portions of the bill are within the scope of Congress' authority under the commerce clause. The VA court ruled it wasn't, and that makes perfect sense. Hyperbolic ramblings and straw men aren't going to address any relevant issues noted by the judge's opinion.
Our first comment! And it's a nice, coherent, thought out one at that! Wait. What in the world is someone of your obvious intellect doing reading this drivel? You must share some of our anger issues.
ReplyDeleteWe certainly agree that the cumulative effects argument in Raich is questionable, but not so much in Wickard. Biggest difference between the two being that wheat isn't a controlled substance, is taxed, and is therefore more likely to actually have an aggregate effect on IC when suppliers horde it in mass quantities for "personal consumption."
But the Court's reasoning in both of those cases is particularly applicable to the individual responsibility aspect of of the PPACA.
The aggregate effect of millions of people not paying their medical bills absolutely has an effect on IC -- and certainly more so than some guy growing a little weed in his house.
I don't know many hospitals, medical supply or insurance companies that are in-state, mom and pop shops. Every time they get stiffed on a bill in Texas, it affects their bottom lines in ND or NJ or whatever.
And how do you think those medical supplies and hospital construction materials and even the medical professionals get to the patients? Via the channels of interstate commerce, highways, rails and airways, of course.
With corporations controlling medical care nationwide, there is a very clear close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce, and the tax that the PPACA imposes on those who don't obtain healthcare insurance is certainly revenue raising. In our pee brains, there's no question the individual responsibility provision is constitutional.
So shouldn't we make a law pursuant to clearly annunciated Congressional powers, like one punishing people for not paying their medical bills? Or one requiring those corporations to provide some kind of insurance to the needy or indigent as a cost of doing business (rather than passing the cost on to consumers)?
ReplyDeleteThere are complicated economic and social issues as stake in this legislation, many of which are beyond the scope of my education or ability, and PPACA may address those issues better than many alternative means - perhaps it prevents increases, and may even lead to decreases, in the overall cost of health insurance (although in my experience the cost of anything only heads in one direction).
I suppose my real issue, on a gut rather than constitutional level, is that a person can choose whether or not to drive a car, they can choose whether or not to grow weed or wheat, and what to do with that weed or wheat, but they can't choose whether or not to have a body with healthcare needs.
I don't have a problem with the bill or even with the alternative idea of universal healthcare, and I could get on board with a single payer, nationalized healthcare system (perhaps quality would suffer some at the higher end, but it seems like health care is sufficiently important that its better that everyone have good healthcare rather than some have great and some have none).
My problem is with the unchecked expansion of government authority under the commerce clause - specifically the federal government. Different states have different healthcare needs. Perhaps we let the laboratories do their experiments.
Regulating health insurance comes under the commerce clause - perhaps even regulating basic health care does as well - but regulating what people do or don't do in order to guard against disease or disability encroaches on fundamental rights that, at their heart, have little to do with commerce and more to do with lifestyle choice. I'm sure that allowing homosexuals to marry or allowing women to have abortions has some effect on interstate commerce as well, as I'm sure anything could if we extrapolate it enough. At some point this crosses a line into a person's freedom, rather than wallet, and that I can't get behind.
You make some good points, and I mostly agree, actually. Unchecked government is bad.
ReplyDeleteBut the real problem lies in the fact that when any crazy lib-rul advocates for universal healthcare, or extensive reform, Republicans start playing the "don't tread on me" card, and it's so fucking tiring. Then, when we finally get a bill passed that enacts a fundamental Republican value of taking care of and providing for yourself, they're up in arms. I just don't get it.
If this bill was the brain child of ANY Republican, none of this debate would still be going on. None. But a black Democrat carried the ball on it, and that pisses off the Glen Beck's of the world. It's not the policy they're really concerned about, it's the person.