It was a week that was dominated with world news ranging from the increasing unrest in the Middle East to the continued concern over the possible radiation risks as a result of the earthquake and Tsunami in Japan
Healthcare reform has not been high on the priority list of important topics. This is the time that a very close eye needs to be kept on the politicians, who like to try to pass unpopular laws when no one is looking. The ACA is still being implemented by the Obama administration, though it has been declared unconstitutional by 2 Federal judges.
According to the latest Kaiser poll, taken the second week of March, people remain divided in their feelings about the law, with 42% viewing it favorably and 46% viewing it unfavorably, and 53% say they are confused. The 53% who say they’re confused is only slightly less than the 55% who reported the same last April, shortly after the law was passed. Not surprisingly, Democrats generally have a positive view, while Republicans are strongly opposed. Independents are split, though they’re leaning towards a negative view (49%) rather than a positive one (37%).
In short, we are in a hurry up and wait mode, while the constitutionality of the Healthcare Reform Bill winds its way through the court system.
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?
