The Doc Is In

Having listened to, and read the transcripts, of the arguments placed before the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of “Obamacare”, it is clear to me that a “re-draft” is needed.  Our health care system clearly needs reform but with a sensible bi-partisan plan. An editorial in today’s Chicago Tribune, entitled : “If Obamacare fails, both parties owe Americans a better plan”, captured my sentiment exactly.  Here, in part, is their opinion:

… The prospect that the court will strike down all or part of the law known as Obamacare hands political leaders of both parties a formidable challenge — and a vast opportunity: a second chance to get health care reform right.

The law isn’t scheduled to fully kick in until 2014. Plenty of time for a reset — a reset that both major parties have an obligation to deliver.

Democrats have been assuming that the law would be upheld by the court and that the American people would come to love it as they learned about it. Neither seems likely now.

Republicans have been chanting, “Repeal and replace.” But now there’s more urgency behind the question: With what? Republican pols came up with several smart ideas during congressional tussles before passage of this bill two years ago, but those never gelled into a coherent, compelling and competing bill.

The court is expected to rule in June. Between now and then — and possibly after the justices rule as well — Democrats and Republicans have a choice: They can continue to cast blame on one another but otherwise dodge this issue until after November’s election. Or they can dwell on the millions of Americans who need health care coverage.

Politicians of the first persuasion, who see the upcoming ruling as nothing more than ammunition for election-year attacks, invite voters to show them the door. What problems are they solving?

We instead hope that lawmakers — Democrats chastened by the court’s skepticism, Republicans who now have to deliver an alternative to Obamacare — will work together toward a bipartisan health care reform law. A law that carefully and affordably expands care.

Obamacare failed to do that. Instead, Americans got a law shoved through Congress by Democrats. A law that required an array of especially noxious backroom deals — Remember the “Cornhusker Kickback” to bribe a Nebraska senator? — to gain the required votes. A law whose unaffordable price tag was intentionally disguised by the sponsors’ accounting gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors projections.

That’s a big reason why many Americans still don’t like the law.

Every politician in America — President Barack Obama and the Republicans campaigning to replace him included — should be ready for this question: The Supreme Court — or the next Congress — could kill Obamacare. What are your ideas for a better way to expand coverage without breaking the bank?

Republicans: “Told you so” isn’t an answer. You need an understandable and solutions-oriented explanation of the “replace” in “Repeal and replace.”

Democrats: “Obamacare minus the mandate is just fine” isn’t a solution. The mandate was part of the law’s central bargain: Everyone would buy coverage, and in exchange, insurance companies would cover all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Without the mandate, health premiums soar or insurance companies collapse. That’s unhealthy for all Americans.

Our goal here isn’t to predict the court’s decision. It’s to assure that whatever the health reform law’s fate, political leaders of both parties promptly respond with the best possible plan.

It will be hugely embarrassing to Obama and his party if the court strikes down the signature achievement of his presidency. But if that happens, he should respond with Plan B — and this time, don’t trust the law-drafting entirely to Congress.

Remember how Obama gathered Republican and Democratic leaders for a televised health care summit in 2010, in what he billed as an attempt to share the best ideas for reform? In the end, the Republican ideas wound up on the cutting-room floor. Democrats didn’t just squander many good proposals. They turned health reform into a purely partisan exercise.

That said, Obama’s Republican challenger will need more than slogans to convince voters. He’ll need a realistic rationale for why his alternative plan will attract Republican and Democratic votes on Capitol Hill.

Lawmakers, candidates: Don’t wait to see if the court really does hit the reset button. Start the debate now.

Americans are listening. And expecting you to perform better than you have in the past.

Source: HERE

(Here are the links to audio tapes and pdf transcripts:)

Monday: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday

Tuesday:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday

Tags: Health Care, Political Topics

… “Over the years, “interstate commerce” became magic words to justify almost any expansion of the federal government’s power, in defiance of the Tenth Amendment. That is what the Obama administration is depending on to get today’s Supreme Court to uphold its power to tell people that they have to buy the particular health insurance specified by the federal government.

There was consternation in 1995 when the Supreme Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. That conclusion might seem like only common sense to most people, but it was a close 5 to 4 decision, and it sparked outrage when the phrase “interstate commerce” failed to work its magic in justifying an expansion of the federal government’s power.

The 1995 case involved a federal law forbidding anyone from carrying a gun near a school. The states all had the right to pass such laws, and most did, but the issue was whether the federal government could pass such a law under its power to regulate interstate commerce.

The underlying argument was similar to that in the 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn: School violence can affect education, which can affect productivity, which can affect interstate commerce.

Since virtually everything affects virtually everything else, however remotely, “interstate commerce” can justify virtually any expansion of government power, by this kind of sophistry.

The principle that the legal authority to regulate X implies the authority to regulate anything that can affect X is a huge and dangerous leap of logic, in a world where all sorts of things have some effect on all sorts of other things.

As an example, take a law that liberals, conservatives and everybody else would agree is valid — namely, that cars have to stop at red lights. Local governments certainly have the right to pass such laws and to punish those who disobey them.

No doubt people who are tired or drowsy are more likely to run through a red light than people who are rested and alert. But does that mean that local governments should have the power to order people when to go to bed and when to get up, because their tiredness can have an effect on the likelihood of their driving through a red light?

The power to regulate indirect effects is not a slippery slope. It is the disastrous loss of freedom that lies at the bottom of a slippery slope.”

So writes, in part, Thomas Sowell, in an article entitled – Back to the Future

Tags: Health Care, Political Topics