Last week, after the weekly update was posted, Judge Roger Vinson responded to a “motion to clarify” that the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed on February 17. In his response to the motion, Judge Vinson admonished the administration for its bad faith in continuing to implement the ACA despite his ruling on January 31, 2011 that the entire Healthcare Reform Bill was unconstitutional. The administration’s Department of Justice lawyers stated, in their reply brief, that the reason for the slow response was because Vinson’s order needed “careful analysis.” However, this statement was “contrary to media reports that the White House declared within hours after entry of [Vinson's] order that ‘implementation will proceed apace’ regardless of the ruling.” Judge Vinson also claimed that the government’s legal citation in this most recent motion “borders on misrepresentation.”
Many legal analysts have stated that any lawyer would have known that the Judge Vinson’s original ruling was effectively the equivalent of an injunction. The fact that the administration willfully disregarded the Judge’s order is just another case of the administration thinking that it is above the law, or at the very least trying to implement as much of the ACA before it is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If the lawyers at the DOJ really didn’t understand the judge’s ruling, then President Obama demonstrated poor judgment in hiring a bunch of incompetent lawyers. If, on the other hand, the DOJ is being disingenuous in proclaiming that they didn’t understand the ruling when, in fact they did, then there is a serious lack of integrity within the DOJ. Which case is worse, I’m not sure, but neither scenario is good for the American people.
Judge Vinson granted a stay on his ruling on the Healthcare Reform Bill for one week, if the government would file an appeal within that period which would request an expedited appellate review, either in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, or in the Supreme Court. If the Administration did not file the request for an expedited review, then his previous ruling would stand and the ACA would remain unconstitutional.
On March 8th, 2011, the Administration filed a notice of appeal in the case of Florida v. HHS and on March 9th, 2011 filed a motion in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for expedited review of the case. The administration has, therefore, met the conditions required by Judge Vinson’s ruling last week on the injunction in this case.
While this may seem like a victory for the states and the NFIB in their lawsuit against the Federal Government, it is still a long way from being decided. Even with both parties requesting an expedited review, it will probably not be heard by the appellate court until late summer or fall of 2011, and the Supreme Court won’t rule on the case until spring of 2012.
The Obama administration’s tactic seems to be to delay the final Judicial ruling on the ACA as long as possible so that they can implement as much of the bill as possible. Two points that this tactic brings up:
1) The administration must believe that it is on shaky ground, constitutionally, otherwise they would try to get the favorable ruling quickly, and broadcast this quickly to the public, which would remove any doubt about the validity of the ACA.
2) The States will be forced to spend (waste) billions of dollars trying to comply with the Healthcare Reform Bill requirements. If the Bill is ultimately declared unconstitutional (which the White House’s actions seem to indicate will be the ultimate outcome) then this wasted money will not help one single American obtain healthcare insurance. With so many States facing budget shortfalls of billions of dollars, why does the Administration not seem to care about this waste of State money? Does the Administration really care about the working poor, who will be hurt the most by this waste of money?
The Healthcare Reform Bill discussion has taken a backseat to all the other news that is happening around the world. This is the time to stay especially vigilant, as the proponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have a history of operating behind closed doors to accomplish their goals. The proponents of healthcare reform realize that the majority of Americans are opposed to the Healthcare Reform Bill, so in order to implement the goals of the bill they need to operate as stealthily as possible.
For those of you are football fans, the big news this week concerning the labor dispute between the NFL owners and the players union was the ruling by one Federal District Judge, David Doty, that the owners had violated the labor agreement by withholding TV funds in case the collective bargaining agreement expired. According to judge Doty, the NFL owners cannot use the $4 billion dollars that the owners would receive from TV contracts for the 2011 season. This was one US district judge, but the NFL owners have to abide by his decision, until it is overturned on appeal.
My question then is: “Why do the NFL owners have to abide by the ruling of ONE US Federal judge, but the President of the United States does not have to follow the same rules?” There have been TWO Federal judges that have ruled that the Healthcare Reform Bill is unconstitutional, yet the President and the White House “vows to implement healthcare reforms, despite the judge’s ruling”, referring to the ruling by Federal Judge Roger Vinson, who declared the entire ACA bill unconstitutional. The double standard involved and the hypocrisy on display here should concern every American. If the President feels that he is above the law, then all Americans should have a great fear for the future of this country.
Healthcare reform is a serious issue in America, not only on a personal basis for every American in order to be able to afford healthcare, but it is becoming a political crisis, too. The political implications of the President of the United States implying that he will not obey a Federal Judge’s ruling can bring about a constitutional crisis. I don’t think anyone foresaw this developing when the debate on healthcare reform began.
Let’s move the debate back to true healthcare reform which must include personal responsibility, prevention of health problems, and assisting those few individuals who honestly cannot afford health insurance. There have been many good ideas on how to reform healthcare to provide a more effective system for more Americans, but almost every one of these ideas have been dismissed because they don not lead America down the path toward a Nationalized healthcare system. And with the White House’s clear disregard for Judge Vinson’s ruling, it is becoming more and more apparent that a nationalized healthcare system is the goal of the Administration.
One of the reasons that liberal politicians are so adamant for the National government to take over providing healthcare for everyone can be demonstrated by the problem that is facing the city of San Francisco. San Francisco has a liability of $4.4 billion to pay for the healthcare costs of RETIRED San Francisco employees and their dependants. As of last year the city has set aside $9.7 million to cover the healthcare that the city promised its employees. If the Federal government takes over the responsibility of healthcare for every American citizen, then cities like San Francisco will be relieved from this financial burden. In November 2009, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on the health care liabilities for retirees of the 39 largest local governments. Sadly, San Francisco ranked only No. 6 on the list, behind larger cities such as New York and Los Angeles.
Large corporations have the same types of unfunded healthcare costs for current and future retirees. Is it any wonder that most politicians and corporations favor unloading these liabilities on the American public?
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came out with a new report this week which indicated that Obamacare will end up decreasing the workforce by 800,000 jobs, or 0.5% of the work force. In the report the CBO points out that some people are working just for the healthcare benefits, while some people are working extra hours to be able to afford health insurance. The report also indicates that some businesses will shut down or not hire employees because of the costs involved with complying with the mandates on businesses in order to comply with Healthcare Reform Bill. So, according to the CBO some people will quit working because they think they will get health insurance from some other source rather than their job, and some businesses will decrease, or at least not increase, the number of employees due to the costs involved with the Healthcare Reform Bill.
How this affects the total unemployment picture is unclear. If more people stop working than are laid-off or not hired, then unemployment will decrease. But, no matter what the effect on the total unemployment picture, the CBO figures still show 800,000 fewer taxpayers paying taxes. If you assume the average wage of these 800,000 non-workers to be $30,000, then the total decrease in wages paid is $24 billion. At an average tax rate of 15% that means $6.45 billion less in tax revenue to the government, increasing the Federal deficit further.
Speaking of the CBO; the estimate of the impact of the Healthcare Reform Bill on the Federal budget ranges from a reduction in the deficit of $1.3 trillion over ten years to a cost of $1.06 trillion in the next ten years. Why such a wide discrepancy? It depends on the data that is presented to the CBO for its analysis. As we previously discussed, the only figures that the CBO can use to calculate the financial impact is based on the figures that it receives from the sponsors of legislation. GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage out) clearly describes the impact of the CBO’s analysis. Even though the media consistently quotes the CBO figures on many items, I would always be suspicious of any figures put out be the CBO.
Part of the revenue that the CBO includes in its calculations is $167 billion in new penalties on individuals and businesses. This is the penalty levied on people who choose not to participate, and purchase or provide health insurance. What does this penalty actually accomplish? The individuals or businesses which are assessed the penalty are still uninsured. If the goal of the Healthcare Reform Bill is to provide healthcare insurance for all Americans, then the penalty only makes it worse for individuals or small businesses. Now they not only don’t have insurance, but they have less money with which they can buy insurance,
This week an organization which advocates for kidney transplant recipients, released a statement that they favor younger, healthier patients needing a kidney transplant should be moved to the head of the list for transplants. Traditionally, the waiting list for transplants has been on a priority basis: First come, first served .Their logic is that we need to get the most benefit out of every kidney available for transplant. Older, less promising transplant recipients should not necessarily get kidneys, just because they have been waiting longer. This position by the kidney transplant advocates is a harbinger of the treatment that we can expect courtesy of the Healthcare Reform Bill. With a limited amount of healthcare resources, someone (a government official) will have to make a decision on who gets treatment first. This is the direction that healthcare in this country is headed. This is exactly what many opponents of nationalized healthcare have feared. The elderly will get less care, as it will be more cost effective to spend healthcare dollars on younger people, who will have the most to gain from healthcare. While, we are not at this point yet, is it the only reasonable outcome of nationalized healthcare and the Healthcare Reform Bill is the first step in that direction.
