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.

John Kennedy is complaining that Landrieu hasn’t committed to debate on his timetable. Her response?

“Sen. Landrieu looks forward to a series of debates with Mr. Kennedy in October when the important work of this Congress is completed. Meanwhile, she will be travelling to every part of the state to discuss the merits of the New ERA energy proposal, which is a very significant piece of legislation that will lower gas prices and transition the country to alternative fuels and energy independence.

“In the meantime, if John Kennedy wants to debate before then, he should debate himself given that he has taken both sides of every issue.”

Excellent.

Yes, Landrieu should debate and it seems that she will do it in October. Seems like Kennedy is making much ado about nothing.

Steve at Bayou Buzz asked some legislators about the pay raise issue. A Republican legislator who is nameless posed this possibility:

One Republican legislator told me that then candidate Jindal really probably did not even know that the legislative raise platform was in the written campaign material.

That is a sad commentary on the state of Louisiana politics. What is even more sad is that with how much Jindal is “handled” by Timmy and Sellers that the idea is actually believable as well.

If that is the lengths you have to go when you run for office, if you have to let other people right your platform for you in order to win, then I guess I will never win an election ever because I would refuse to let campaign advisers tell me what my platform was going to be.

Steve at Bayou Buzz asked Jindal about why he won’t veto the pay raise. See the response here:

Now, Jindal gives his typical non-answer to Steve’s question. However, what is important to notice is Jindal’s “this is our only chance” comment. Is it really our only chance? Is this the only legislative session that will take place during Jindal’s term as governor? I think not. This has been Jindal’s mantra from day one. By telling us that we have one chance, or that this is our only chance, he uses fear tactics to get the voters to fall in line. While this may have been an effective card to play in the past, I think he has overplayed it and it is really beginning to sound silly. I hope that the voters will get tired of hearing how this is our only chance… especially when Jindal has shown that he is unwilling to fulfill campaign promises made (not just with pay raises but with actual ethics reform as well).

WWL has more video from the press conference  and it really is a must see. It really shows how much of a typical Louisiana politician that Bobby Jindal is. I mean, he has an 80% approval rating. Is he really that scared that the legislature wont let him do what he wants when 80% of the state is behind him? Most governors with 80% approval ratings would not be afraid to stand up to the legislature if he felt the legislature was doing something wrong (which he claims they are).

Maybe he realizes that while he may have broad support that the support is just as shallow as the promises made in his campaign.  Maybe he realizes that the legislators realize this as well and that they know he is actually a very weak governor who lacks the leadership skills to effectively govern our state.

What is funny is that at the end of the video, you see Sellers telling Jindal that it is time to go.  The look on her face is really pathetic. It is as if she can see the approval rating droping in front of her eyes.

Steve Sabludowski, owner of BayouBuzz.com states:

It is unfair for a network of related-companies to contribute the legal limits to a single candidate (whether those candidates are republicans or democrats or even independents) .   That practice sends the wrong message when we are trying to say that

Louisiana is not for sale.  While disallowing government officials to work for government agencies or acting as consultants for lobbyists is a major focus of the Jindal ethics reform, there can really be no real reform if candidates can skirt election laws by pooling contributions from related businesses.  If

Louisiana really wants to get into the business of becoming the beacon of bright ethics light, it must start with the very way we handle and win our own elections.

The companies don’t have to be related in any way other than the fact that they are owned by someone. Is absolutely a circumvention of the explained intent of campaign finance laws to allow someone to donate the maximum amount allowed times the number of corporations he owns plus one.

I have a feeling that this is going to really take off soon. Let’s just hope that the politicians (who benefit from these loopholes) pay attention and realize that this is going to be what the majority of the citizens want. No true ethics reform can happen without campaign finance reform.