Liberty and Justice for All!

Louisiana is at it again. They are trying to pass legislation meant to overrule the new health reform law. Supporters of the bill believe that the Federal Government cannot compel citizens to purchase health insurance.

Some argue that since the government has the power to tax, that the mandate (and the fine attached for not being covered by health insurance) is just a tax and so it is constitutional. I suggest you read the article to learn about the current home-ownership and child birth mandates that currently exist in our tax system. It is also interesting to point out that people will be free to choose no insurance. They will just pay a fine for not buying that insurance.

Others argue that the interstate commerce clause grants the Federal Government the power to enforce a mandate on the citizens.

However, I am going to ignore that for a second. Let’s assume that the State of Louisiana has the power to overrule the mandate and the federal tax code and allow citizens to not be fined for refusing to purchase insurance. What will happen then?

Well, the Louisiana law would overturn the mandate while keeping the ban on pre-existing condition clauses intact. Citizens of Louisiana would be free to wait to buy insurance until they get sick. Since they cannot be turned away for their pre-existing conditions, insurance will stop being insurance in Louisiana and it will only be a kind of discount plan.

See, the reason that we used to allow pre-existing condition clauses is because we wanted to prevent anti-selection (the practice of waiting until you are sick to buy insurance). So if you eliminate those clauses, you need another way to prevent anti-selection. The only other way available is a mandate.

So what will happen is that private insurers offering individual health policies will stop doing business in Louisiana since they will no longer be able to protect themselves from anti-selection. No more private insurance would be made available in Louisiana. Louisiana will have driven the insurers out of our state.

However, as the Supreme Court said in Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, the supremacy clause cannot be used to override state law unless

the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained.

So even if you want to argue that Congress has not unmistakably ordained that state law can be overridden using the supremacy clause, the nature of the regulated subject matter (health care) permits no other conclusion (than to mandate healthcare coverage since pre-existing condition clauses are banned). The mandate will stand and the state will waste more money trying to defend its quixotic legislation.

At least so I am told by conservatives, nearly every day.

I am even told that Americans will make their voices heard in November.

Why wait for November? Why not make your voices heard now? There must be an election that will take place before then.

Oh wait, there was. Republican Ed Lynch ran on a platform of repealing healthcare reform to replace Robert Wexler in the House of Representatives. Other Conservatives believed that this seat could be taken away from the Socialists.

Guess how that turned out? Patriotic Americans went out and cast their votes against the candidate who wanted to repeal this new healthcare law.

But this can’t be! I thought Americans would get up and revolt against this “tyrannical law”. Perhaps the political hyperbole of the political right was just full of hot air… or something browner.

See, cause as it turns out, the election pretty much had the same results of previous elections in that district. Ted Deutch won by 26 points over Lynch. Lynch lost to Wexler last time as well.

It wasn’t even close. Of course, Democrats should not get a false sense of security because of the results. This is supposed to be a safe district for the Democrats. But so far, in attempts to take Congressional seats away after the health reform legislation, the GOP is 0-1.

Louisiana AG Buddy Caldwell defended his reasoning for joining the previously all Republican attempt to overturn the new healthcare legislation via a lawsuit with the given excuse:

 As Attorney General, I am duty bound by my oath of office to pursue a request by the Governor of the state of Louisiana for legal assistance, so long as it has substantial legal merit. (emphasis mine)

Now, we could argue if the case actually has any legal merit (I doubt it) but that is not the point. As it has been explained in the media, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal allegedly threatened the AG with the loss of some staff positions if he did not comply with the Governor’s request that he join the lawsuit.

In a subsequent address to employees of his office, the Attorney General said the decision was made more out of the necessity of saving jobs in his agency than any real hope—or desire—of overturning the health care law.

One employee said Caldwell, in a candid admission, claimed that a deal was made with Jindal. Under terms of that agreement, the governor would not make additional cuts in the attorney general’s budget if Caldwell joined in the litigation. Caldwell agreed to be the “token Democrat,” he said, so that he might save additional job cuts by an administration whose state goal is to reduce the number of state employees by as much as 5,000 per year over three years.

 

Now, many are calling this a threat and others are calling it a bribe. You can argue the semantics of what it is all day but there is an important aspect of this that needs to be addressed.

The Louisiana Attorney General is an elected position.  As such, one would think that he would have the autonomy to pursue (or not pursue) whatever he felt was necessary in the course of his service to the State of Louisiana.

The Constitution of the State of Louisiana confirms this.

Section 8. There shall be a Department of Justice, headed by the attorney general, who shall be the chief legal officer of the state. The attorney general shall be elected for a term of four years at the state general election. The assistant attorneys general shall be appointed by the attorney general to serve at his pleasure.

As necessary for the assertion or protection of any right or interest of the state, the attorney general shall have authority (1) to institute, prosecute, or intervene in any civil action or proceeding; (2) upon the written request of a district attorney, to advise and assist in the prosecution of any criminal case; and (3) for cause, when authorized by the court which would have original jurisdiction and subject to judicial review, (a) to institute, prosecute, or intervene in any criminal action or proceeding, or (b) to supersede any attorney representing the state in any civil or criminal action.

The attorney general shall exercise other powers and perform other duties authorized by this constitution or by law.

There doesn’t seem to be any constitutional requirement for the AG to do the bidding of the Governor.

However, while the assistant attorney generals serve at the pleasure of the AG, other staff does not serve at his pleasure and those positions can (apparently) be eliminated when the Governor sees fit.

Apparently, Governor Jindal feels that staffing levels in the Department of Justice should be set  by how subservient the AG is willing to be when it comes to the demands of the Governor and not by the total money available in the state budget or the needs of the Attorney General to do his constitutionally mandated job.

This  leads me to question the autonomy that Caldwell, or any AG, will have under Bobby Jindal. If anybody in the Jindal Administration comes under scrutiny and needs to be investigated, will Caldwell do his duty and investigate the appropriate people and do his job? Or has Bobby Jindal effectively neutered the ability of the AG to investigate the political allies of Governor Jindal with the threat of departmental cuts if Jindal’s bidding is not done.

Jindal has now managed to turn the AG into his puppet while removing one more avenue to investigate the Governor’s office.

And to all the remaining Jindal apologists, how does manipulating the AG to do your bidding with the threat of reduced staffing levels fall under the “gold standard of ethics” promised by Governor Jindal?

I have been subbing in for David Gereighty (my former co-host on Dan and Dave on the Air) on GT Morning Radio and will continue to do so for the rest of the week. Tomorrow (Wednesday) our scheduled topics are the Louisiana Health Care Freedom Act sponsored by A.G. Crowe and recently announced candidate for Lt. Governor Roger Villere.

Tune in! (The podcasts of the previous shows this week are located here)

The GOP has chosen David Vitter to be first up to bat when it comes to derailing this bill to fix the Senate bill.

This means that David Vitter is now on record as wanting to kill the legislation that would have eliminated the “Cornhusker Compromise” and that would have eliminated the “Donut Hole”.

Again, do the Republicans really want to be on the record as the party who fights to keep the “Cornhusker Compromise” (or Cornhusker Kickback) in the healthcare bill? Do the Republicans really want to be on the record as the party who fights to keep the Medicare Donut Hole? Do the Republicans really want to have serious sinner David Vitter as their lead spokesperson? Really?

The Senate healthcare legislation passed the House. The House also passed a legislation to “fix” the Senate bill and that bill will move to the Senate under reconciliation (because Democrats believe that they won’t get support of all of the Democrats and that Republicans would unite against it).

Now, if the Republicans vote against the “fix” in the Senate, what exactly are they voting against?

Voting against the “fix” would keep the Medicare “donut hole” in place.

Voting against the “fix” would mean that funds to fight Medicare fraud and abuse would not increase.

Voting against the “fix” would keep the “cornhusker compromise” intact.

That last one is important and is the basis of my question to conservatives in the Senate. Do you really want to be on record as voting against the elimination of the cornhusker compromise? Really?

And do you really want to be want to be on record as voting to keep the Medicare donut hole in place? Really?

There are many who are suggesting that a mandate to have health coverage is not constitutional.

The mandate is needed because if you remove pre-existing condition clauses without some other way of preventing anti-selection, people will only buy insurance when they are sick and then it stops being insurance.

But just because something is needed does not make it constitutional. So for those who question the constitutionality of coverage mandates I have to ask you this: What gives you the right to make me your unpaid insurer?

You may wonder why I am asking you that question. When you use your so called “liberty” to not buy insurance you are now putting all of your risk on me (someone who has insurance). When you go to the ER for an emergency and cannot pay, your costs get passed on to me.

So if it is constitutional for you to force me to pay for your healthcare, it must be constitutional for me to force you to pay for your fair share of it.

I called the Jeff Crouere show on WGSO 990 AM on Thursday morning to correct him about taxpayer dollars going to pay for abortions. The Senate language does not do this (no matter how many prolife politicians or groups want to claim otherwise).

Here is how you deal with their false claims.

A) Each area that has exchanges is required to have one plan that does not include abortion coverage. Anyone who doesn’t want to have a plan that covers abortion is free to choose that plan.

B) People who choose to purchase a plan via an exchange that does provide abortion will be doing so knowing that there was a non abortion providing plan. These plans are required to segregate the funds paid for with private dollars and only cover abortion services with those privately contributed funds. So even if abortions take place, they will be guaranteed to not be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

So no taxes go towards paying for abortion and no person will be required to put private money into a plan that covers abortions because they can always buy a plan that doesn’t cover abortions.

Anyone who is prolife who tries to tell you that tax dollars will pay for abortions is either a liar or uninformed.

At a rally promoting healthcare reform, Obama said that with the reform legislation that employers could see a 3000% reduction in premiums enabling them to give you a raise.

Well, the conservatives have flooded the internet with all sorts of comments about this gaffe, really believing that Obama meant to say 3000%.

It is obvious that he meant dollars.If you think he really meant percent, you are an idiot and an example of what is wrong in politics.

Just sayin…

The election over the open Massachusetts Senate seat is coming into the final stretch and it is closer than perhaps many people would have thought. Conventional wisdom would seem to favor the Democrat (Martha Coakley) but Massachusetts has elected Republicans in statewide elections before (Mitt Romney anyone?). I believe that all of the Governors between Dukakis and Patrick have been Republicans.

Democrats in that election are making one huge mistake and I fear it could be costing them votes, if not the election*. They are trying to paint the seat as “Teddy’s Senate Seat” and that we cannot let the Republicans take it away so they can kill healthcare reform.

The Democrats seem to forget that Ted Kennedy did not have very long coattails. Besides all the GOP governors who won while he was in the Senate, Kennedy also endorsed Obama in the primaries and Clinton took the seat. While Senator Kennedy may have been very popular in Massachusetts, it doesn’t seem that he was really ever able to share that popularity with others. So what makes the Democratic Party think that it will be able to do what Teddy Kennedy could never do, which is to use the luster of Teddy Kennedy to help others win in Massachusetts?

Furthermore, Massachusetts is a state that already has healthcare reform with  universal coverage. Telling them that they need to support a Democrat to help with healthcare reform for other people doesn’t seem very smart at all. Perhaps they should have focused on Cap and Trade, or the Employee Free Choice Act, or that he once voted to allow for religious exemptions so that pro-life doctors and nurses could deny access to the morning after pill for women in the ER. (They did put that vote in an ad, but that is not the focus of the campaign).

Instead of trying to label this as being “Teddy’s seat”, perhaps the Democrats should be claiming that this is the “people’s seat” and that only by supporting the Democratic Candidate in this election will you elect someone who will stand up and fight for the people of Massachusetts in Washington D.C.

Just sayin…

*I really do think Coakley will win, but I really think the Democrats are not fighting this election in the right way.