The Other McCain has a truly disturbing story on his site that I only just got wind of. Apparently a judge Kessler has decided that "it is a matter of pure semantics to say that someone who chooses not to purchase health insurance is not acting." As McCain says in the post, paging George Orwell.
This is truly frightening to me, and even though I know the law will have to reach the supreme court before the final decision is made, what really scares me is that there are people working in our federal courtrooms who can actually twist the meaning of our most important founding document so horrifically that someone can actually be lead to believe that making a decision through thought is the same as acting on that decision. If this ruling is not overturned eventually, the floodgates will have opened. What then stops the federal government from regulating absolutely everything we do at any given time for any given reason? Nothing, that's what. One of the comments on McCain's site does lend a bit of humor to the situation which helps keep things in perspective for me:
"As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."
Oh this could be SO much fun. Let's try it with other Constitutional provisions:
"As previous Eighth Amendment cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. thoughts, there is little judicial guidance on whether a punishment that makes someone feel bad can constitute cruelty."
"As previous Freedom of the Press cases have all involved physical publication, as opposed to mental publication, i.e. ideas, there is little judicial guidance on the scope of First Amendment exceptions such as libel apply to the general police power against Badthought."
"As previous War Powers cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."
"As previous Electoral College rules have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether deem-and-pass can apply in this context."
Legal Insurrection as well has something to say about this. Via the Other McCain:
Our thoughts are now actions. There literally is nothing the federal government cannot regulate provided there is even a hypothetical connection to the economy, even if the connection at most is in the future.
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Reading is Funadmental, Unless You're a Democrat in Congress, Apparently
Yesterday morning (Jan. 6th, as of this writing), something
unprecidented happened in the hallowed halls of the House of
Representatives. The elected representatives, all of them, a piece at
a time, read from beginning to end the Constitution of the United
States of America. We all know, of course, that this is a symbolic
gesture pushed by the new GOP majority in order to tell the people who
voted them in that they intended to do things right and actually
listen to and stand by the document our Founders gave us 223 years
ago. I, and I'm sure many others, however, will be watching these new
congressmen and women like hawks in order to make sure they hold their
own against the coming onslaught of ridicule and slander that the
liberal left will send their way (in some cases, they already have).
My astonishment isn't only with the idea that this congress might
actually keep its word after the last two failed miserably to do so,
but at the level of vitriol and ridicule being received just for the
idea of reading one of our founding documents. Such things in general
are to be expected from the other side, of course. Joy Behar calling
Sharon Angle a "bitch" for one, and even John Boehner's nickname given
to him by the media, the "Weeper of the House." That type of talk was
more than a little expected by me, and by many others. What I
personally did NOT expect to hear from these liberal talking heads,
however, was open contempt and hatred for the very document that the
representatives we elect are sworn to protect and defend.
Joy Behar, to bring us back to the redheaded dragon lady, actually
asked this loony question: "Don't you think this Constitution loving
is getting out of hand?" What? Does she even realize that that very
document is what reafffirms her freedom to slander it and those who
praise it incessantly? I doubt it.
One representative, Jerold Nadler, mocked the reading as nothing more
than "propaganda" and complained that the GOP was "reading it (the
Constitution) like it's a sacred text." Well in a way, isn't it? It is
the document that garauntees our freedom of speech, right to bear
arms, and protection against illegal searches and seizures. Shouldn't
we hold some reverence and respect for this document, as well as the
people who wrote it? Not according to him, apparently.
Ezra Klein, a man four years my junior and a few hundred brain cells
short of normal intelligence, said the Constitution was "confusing"
because it was "over a hundred years old" and thus "had no binding
power on anything." That statement basically calls into question the
very existence of the United States itself, given that without the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence (in my opinion the latter
moreso than the former) then there wouldn't BE a United States of
America at all, and the mouthpiece known as Ezra Klein would have no
forum to speak his mind if the wrong chucklehead was in power at the
time. He also, in the same breath as the above comments, called the
reading itself a "gimmick".
Now, I honestly don't know if the reading will have stuck a few months
into the new Congress. No one knows what they're going to do in the
future. We can only speculate. I am hopeful, however, as this reading
and the upcoming vote to repeal Obama's Deathcare bill next week are
signs that the new GOP is listening, something that the former
Democratic Supermajority never did. Call me an idealist, but as Ronald
Reagan said in his first inaugural address, I believe that "it is
morning again in America," and the future, should this trend continue,
is very bright indeed.
unprecidented happened in the hallowed halls of the House of
Representatives. The elected representatives, all of them, a piece at
a time, read from beginning to end the Constitution of the United
States of America. We all know, of course, that this is a symbolic
gesture pushed by the new GOP majority in order to tell the people who
voted them in that they intended to do things right and actually
listen to and stand by the document our Founders gave us 223 years
ago. I, and I'm sure many others, however, will be watching these new
congressmen and women like hawks in order to make sure they hold their
own against the coming onslaught of ridicule and slander that the
liberal left will send their way (in some cases, they already have).
My astonishment isn't only with the idea that this congress might
actually keep its word after the last two failed miserably to do so,
but at the level of vitriol and ridicule being received just for the
idea of reading one of our founding documents. Such things in general
are to be expected from the other side, of course. Joy Behar calling
Sharon Angle a "bitch" for one, and even John Boehner's nickname given
to him by the media, the "Weeper of the House." That type of talk was
more than a little expected by me, and by many others. What I
personally did NOT expect to hear from these liberal talking heads,
however, was open contempt and hatred for the very document that the
representatives we elect are sworn to protect and defend.
Joy Behar, to bring us back to the redheaded dragon lady, actually
asked this loony question: "Don't you think this Constitution loving
is getting out of hand?" What? Does she even realize that that very
document is what reafffirms her freedom to slander it and those who
praise it incessantly? I doubt it.
One representative, Jerold Nadler, mocked the reading as nothing more
than "propaganda" and complained that the GOP was "reading it (the
Constitution) like it's a sacred text." Well in a way, isn't it? It is
the document that garauntees our freedom of speech, right to bear
arms, and protection against illegal searches and seizures. Shouldn't
we hold some reverence and respect for this document, as well as the
people who wrote it? Not according to him, apparently.
Ezra Klein, a man four years my junior and a few hundred brain cells
short of normal intelligence, said the Constitution was "confusing"
because it was "over a hundred years old" and thus "had no binding
power on anything." That statement basically calls into question the
very existence of the United States itself, given that without the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence (in my opinion the latter
moreso than the former) then there wouldn't BE a United States of
America at all, and the mouthpiece known as Ezra Klein would have no
forum to speak his mind if the wrong chucklehead was in power at the
time. He also, in the same breath as the above comments, called the
reading itself a "gimmick".
Now, I honestly don't know if the reading will have stuck a few months
into the new Congress. No one knows what they're going to do in the
future. We can only speculate. I am hopeful, however, as this reading
and the upcoming vote to repeal Obama's Deathcare bill next week are
signs that the new GOP is listening, something that the former
Democratic Supermajority never did. Call me an idealist, but as Ronald
Reagan said in his first inaugural address, I believe that "it is
morning again in America," and the future, should this trend continue,
is very bright indeed.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
A Keepable New Year's Resolution!
Yes, you read that right. I believe I've found one. Little Miss Attila brought it to my attention, via Hillbuzz. LMA suggests, with help from Hillbuzz, that you, myself, and other fellow bloggers pick one "issue of our times" and become experts on it by reading and researching stories. After becoming experts on such stories, we report and blog about them throughout the year. Sounds like a great idea to me. I believe I might have found my issue, in the form of the new end-of-life provision that has been written back into Obamacare by way of the "secretary shall determine" language.
Since I can't find the link for the article, here it is in print, as I copied and pasted it to read later:
Since I can't find the link for the article, here it is in print, as I copied and pasted it to read later:
Remember the "death panel" scare in last year's health care debate? Sarah Palin and others served up ominous warnings that a House health care overhaul bill would give federal bureaucrats life-and-death power over medical treatment for people approaching the end of their lives.
Those fears were overblown. But the political furor forced Democrats to scrap a provision that would have paid doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling once every five years.
Now comes word of new Medicare rules that some critics say resurrect the "death panels."
Relax. These new rules are more Marcus Welby than Jack Kevorkian.
Right now, Medicare will pay a doctor for one end-of-life planning session with a Medicare patient. That may include help on how to prepare an "advance directive," a patient's instructions to his doctors about what to do if the patient becomes too sick to make his own medical decisions.
Chicago Shopping Overwhelming Offers: Always 50% off or more from your favorite brands >>
Starting Jan. 1, Medicare will pay for an annual session, if needed, as part of a broader "wellness" visit.
That's it. The counseling sessions are voluntary. The government won't tell doctors what to discuss with their patients. It won't pressure physicians to push patients into living wills or advance directives.
It's a smart move.
Research shows that end-of-life planning is valuable: A recent British Medical Journal study concluded it "improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."
The study also noted that "patients welcome advance care planning and expect health professionals to initiate discussions."
That doesn't always happen, of course. Many patients don't have these conversations with their doctors, says Dr. Robert Berenson of the Urban Institute.
Reason One: Some doctors avoid starting end-of-life talks because it makes them uncomfortable.
Reason Two: Doctors are paid to deliver more aggressive treatment, even if it's futile. Berenson tells us that many patients are not fully informed about treatment options and the prognosis for success. Even if they choose a less aggressive treatment plan, some doctors ignore or overrule those preferences. "In other words, doctors are often more heroic than patients are," he says.
In a 2009 Urban Institute study, Berenson and his co-authors suggested a raft of ways to pay for health care reform. They estimated that the government could save $90 billion over 10 years, not by denying care but by better managing end-of-life care. That means helping terminally ill patients avoid futile treatment and manage their pain once they choose to stop treatment. It also means focusing on comfort and emotional support, not on exhausting every option technology offers.
Families, patients and doctors reach excruciating decisions every day about whether to extend treatment in the face of steep odds or to choose a less aggressive course. What families and patients decide is often guided not just by financial concerns, but by religious principles and deeply held moral beliefs.
The new rule changes none of that. But it does encourage doctors to open those tough conversations about death. To let patients know that they can largely control what is and is not done in the final days of their lives. That their families won't be forced to make agonizing decisions. That's a tremendous relief for many patients, and the families they leave behind.
Let me know what you think!
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Euthanasia by Any Other Name...
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, that appears to be exactly what some in the Obama administration are doing concerning the much crowed about "end of life" provision that was stripped from the original monster we call a "bill" named Obamacare. Well, boys and girls, it looks like they're going to try to slip it in. Via memeorandum:
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Sounds like we're getting more choices with out healthcare, doesn't it? Well, keep on reading, true believers:
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
Regulation process, huh? Isn't that the same as legislation by fiat? Also, interesting little factoid for those who don't know: It's not just Republicans who are opposed to this bill, and this end of life provision. The whole bill had bipartisan opponents from all walks of life. Not to mention, the Republicans of the 111th Congress were about as able to stop Obama as a wall of paper was to stop bullets from a rail gun.
Things will change, hopefully, with the initiation of the 112th Congress, which they say will begin with a reading of a little document we like to call the Constitution of the United States of America. Hopefully they can kill this damned end of life provision while they're at it, since that was one of their principal election platforms in the midterms. If they don't, I'm sure there'll be hell to pay. From me at least if from no one else.
Oh, sure. The article starts out innocently enough, seemingly telling each of the readers that it will only incentivize doctors to council patients about what kind of treatment they want. Really? I don't buy it. Reason being because the article states that the government will specifically subsidize those doctors who recommend end of life care for their patients. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this provision already in the original bill and taken out because of a major hooplah that was caused by the bill's opponents? Mark Billing, who was subbing for Rush today on his show, confirms that yes, indeed, that was the case. Not only that, but according to him the language is even stronger now than it was in its original form. And its original form was specifically labeled "indefensible". Well, if this provision was indefensible then, what makes them think its defensible now?
The answer, dear readers, is that it is not. Obama has, using the rule making authority given to him by the passage of this 2000 page paperweight to recraft Obamacare into exactly what he wanted it to be before the town hall meetings of 2009 forced him to make promises that he had no intention of keeping.
God help us all in these trying times, and may the new Congress keep their heads and listen to those who gave them their consent just one short month ago.
Update: Left Coast Rebel beat me to posting this first, so here's some of his take on the issue:
Some Basics:
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Sounds great, doesn't it? Sounds like we're getting more choices with out healthcare, doesn't it? Well, keep on reading, true believers:
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
Regulation process, huh? Isn't that the same as legislation by fiat? Also, interesting little factoid for those who don't know: It's not just Republicans who are opposed to this bill, and this end of life provision. The whole bill had bipartisan opponents from all walks of life. Not to mention, the Republicans of the 111th Congress were about as able to stop Obama as a wall of paper was to stop bullets from a rail gun.
Things will change, hopefully, with the initiation of the 112th Congress, which they say will begin with a reading of a little document we like to call the Constitution of the United States of America. Hopefully they can kill this damned end of life provision while they're at it, since that was one of their principal election platforms in the midterms. If they don't, I'm sure there'll be hell to pay. From me at least if from no one else.
Oh, sure. The article starts out innocently enough, seemingly telling each of the readers that it will only incentivize doctors to council patients about what kind of treatment they want. Really? I don't buy it. Reason being because the article states that the government will specifically subsidize those doctors who recommend end of life care for their patients. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this provision already in the original bill and taken out because of a major hooplah that was caused by the bill's opponents? Mark Billing, who was subbing for Rush today on his show, confirms that yes, indeed, that was the case. Not only that, but according to him the language is even stronger now than it was in its original form. And its original form was specifically labeled "indefensible". Well, if this provision was indefensible then, what makes them think its defensible now?
The answer, dear readers, is that it is not. Obama has, using the rule making authority given to him by the passage of this 2000 page paperweight to recraft Obamacare into exactly what he wanted it to be before the town hall meetings of 2009 forced him to make promises that he had no intention of keeping.
God help us all in these trying times, and may the new Congress keep their heads and listen to those who gave them their consent just one short month ago.
Update: Left Coast Rebel beat me to posting this first, so here's some of his take on the issue:
Some Basics:
- Think of end-of-life counseling from the Obama White House as carrots dangled in front of doctors, financial "incentives" for doctors to discuss “options” for end-of-life care. As stated in the NYT, that may "include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," or a continuance of Obama's "take this pill and go home" solution to medical costs.
- Under this new regulatory regime, doctors could ostensibly be the pawns of cost-curve-bending bureaucrats. To put this into perspective, ponder a Greece-like meltdown of our financial system/government in the future and the way then that these rules would be implemented. Better yet, think of this amount of power held in the wrong hands. How would the elderly be "counseled" during a time of national crisis? Moral hazard? Who determines that doctors have pure motives, instead of purely financial motives as they counsel in end-of-life situations?
- Team Obama (has again) done a complete 180 degree turn on the American people, going behind the back of both the American public and the Democrat-controlled Congress that took the death panel language out the legislation due to public outcry.
- Obama has been able to insert the death panel regulations due to the ambiguous "the Secretary shall determine" language that appears five times in the final 2000 page Senate version of Obamacare giving the "Secretary" (in this case, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius) the ability to implement (at their discretion) such a rule. The end-of-life regulation was finalized in November, brought to light the day after Christmas, and takes effect January 1, 2011. How's that for transparency, hope and change?
- The regulation is yet another example that Obamacare is simply the skeleton template of socialized, government-run health care. As Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection states, "Obamacare simply is the infrastructure. The details and the demons will be worked out in regulations." The end-of-life regulation is such a detail and demon.
Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)