|
|
|
|
Wherefore ObamaCare?
Part Two of Three By Dave Andrusko Every week or two I like to bring to your attention a few of the countless developments--political, legal, and legislative--that relate to ObamaCare. Courtesy of the November 2 elections, there is now a newly-strengthened Republican minority in the Senate and majority status in the House. Many Republicans campaigned on a theme of repealing and replacing ObamaCare.
Let's start with public opinion, which in spite of the spinning from the White House, is dead-set against ObamaCare. Yesterday Rasmussen reported on a separate but related issue: whether the public thinks repeal is at least somewhat likely. The headline was "Health Care Law: 47% Say Health Care Repeal Is Likely, 39% Disagree." This 47% is the highest figure ever, and is a stark contrast to what Rasmussen found in April just after the law was passed when only 38% said repeal was at least somewhat likely, compared to 51% who disagreed. Meanwhile there are challenges galore to ObamaCare in the federal courts. Much of the attention has focused on Judge Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court in Richmond, who was openly skeptical of the law's provision that requires most Americans to obtain insurance. Moreover "another judge, Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., has joined Judge Hudson in writing preliminary opinions that seemingly accept key arguments made by state officials challenging the law," according to an in-depth New York Times'' piece, written by Kevin Sack and Robert Pear. To put the importance of these cases in perspective, they quoted from an article that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine written by University of North Carolina political scientist Jonathan Oberlander. "Any ruling against the act creates another P.R. problem for the Democrats, who need to resell the law to insured Americans," he warned. Such a ruling, Oberlander wrote, "could add to health care reform's legitimacy problem." Although there are many parts of the 2,700-page long bill that have drawn criticism, the "novel question before the courts," Sack and Pear write, "is whether the government can require citizens to buy a commercial product like health insurance." The office of Virginia''s attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, argued the case before Judge Hudson on October 18. Cuccinelli made a number of fascinating observations in a recent update he sent out. For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia has passed the Healthcare Freedom Act (VHFA), which says (he writes) "that no Virginian can be ordered to purchase health insurance against his will." This conflicts directly "with the federal healthcare law's mandate that all qualifying Americans must purchase government-approved health insurance." Cuccinelli then went on to summarize some of what took place at the 2 and one-half hour long hearing. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "One way of thinking about what the feds are trying to do is that in an effort to regulate interstate commerce, they are compelling us all into commerce, i.e., ordering us to buy their mandated health insurance. Virginia's position is that those who decide not to buy health insurance aren't taking any action at all that is related to commerce. All the case law related to the commerce clause addresses people voluntarily engaging in economic activity. "Well, if you're not doing anything (i.e., not buying insurance), there's no activity to regulate. Put differently, you are inactive. "The feds' addressed this argument saying 'the appearance of inactivity is a mere illusion.'" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Judge Hudson has promised a decision by the end of the year. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today todaveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
