Skip to main content

Obamacare Unconstitutional!

I begin this post a few thousand feet in the air, in the aisle seat in the rear of the aircraft. I suppose it is fitting that a gastroenterologist would be in the rear section. Fair is fair. Flying is a psychological test of one’s mettle. After enduring the security process, which is designed to find bad stuff instead of bad people, there are other layers of hassle to face. When I reached the cabin door, I was told that there was no available overhead space to store my bag. This development is often tolerable, as gate-checked bags are brought directly up to the arrival gate walkway after arrival, so you can avoid the hand-to-hand combat of the baggage claim arena. Not this time. For reasons, known but to the Almighty, my bag will be directed to the baggage claim, where I hope and pray that I will be properly reunited with it. Meanwhile, I will enjoy the luxury of an airline seat that would be quite comfortable for an average sized 4th grader. If the lady in front of me tilts her seat back, and my tray table is extended, then I will receive a Heimlich maneuver. Who knows? Maybe this could save my life if she leans back at the moment that the filet mignon I will be served gets trapped in my trachea.

Obamacare has hit an important judicial roadblock when Federal Judge Henry Hudson of Virgina ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Judge Hudson is the 3rd federal judge to rule on the constitutionality of the president’s health care plan. The first two judges gave the law a pass. Earlier today, oral arguments began in a Pensacola, Florida federal court before a judge who is suspected to harbor constitutional concerns of the health care plan. Already, 4 federal courts are involved, and it’s only 9 months since the law was signed. This is going to be a rocky road, and no one can predict the ultimate outcome. It is likely that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to reconcile various diverging views from lower Federal district and appellate courts. This emphasizes that a president who fills vacancies in the Supreme Court has a powerful tool to protect his policies against legislative threats and reversals.

Of course, courts are not supposed to make policy. They are charged to determine if an action or a law is lawful. Often, court decisions are criticized by folks who are not happy with the outcome, even though the legal issue before the judges may be arcane and not directly related to the actual issue. For example, the headline may read: “Judge Rules that Hospital May Withhold Chemo from Child with Cancer”, but the legal issue may be far removed from this emotional vignette. I’m not suggesting that judges rule in a robotic fashion without compassion or considering their own human experiences. I do feel, however, that it is not their role to depart from the law to provide extrajudicial remedies that should originate elsewhere. While the law does evolve, this is a gradual process that respects precedent and judicial restraint, at least in my view.

Is Obamacare constitutional? I have no idea. If a handful of wizened judges can’t agree, I don’t think that a mere colonoscopist in Cleveland should opine on the issue. Despite its legality, it remains a very unpopular law. Polling still shows that the majority of Americans would like the law totally or partially repealed, while 43% of us approve of the plan. This does not augur well for the president, since the tough medicine in his plan won’t appear for a number of years. Of course, Obama could dodge the fallout, which is inevitable if the law survives. He could be a ‘one termer’ and leave the angry mess to his successor. 

This is how the issue appears from 30,000 feet.  How does it look to you on the ground?

Comments

  1. I suppose it is fitting that a gastroenterologist would be in the rear section.
    Now that's funny, Dr. Kirsch! I hope the rest of the light was not too bad.

    During the primaries I was a Hillary Clinton supporter for two reasons. First, I saw the Clinton/Obama choice as one between a rottweiler and a cocker spaniel and I felt the rottweiler would fare better in Washington. Second, his healthcare reform proposal did not include a mandate and hers did. It was clear to me that if everyone is not in the game there is no real risk sharing, just gambling in a different form.

    I was wrong about the cocker spaniel part because this guy left the politically unpopular work (mandates) up to others. All of the various early proposals (of which there were some fifteen or so) included a mandate. No real risk pool works unless everyone at risk is included. Otherwise those not taking part get a free ride. It's the very core of risk management, insurance by definition.

    As I said before, following the "Citizens United" ruling I will not be shocked at any decision of the Roberts Court. But in this case I think the insurance industry senses that without a mandate the parasites will eventually kill the host. (Never mind the premium dollars, including our tax dollars in the form of subsidies for those unable to afford insurance, resulting from the universal
    mandate.)

    All this prattling about rights and commerce is mainly a bunch of noise. Meantime a more immediate tug-o-war between insurance and HHS is in progress regarding insurance premium <a href="http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2010/12/22/implementing-health-reform-the-premium-review-regulation/>MLR (Medical Loss Ratio)</a>.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're right (but incomplete) in saying that Affordable Care Act is (according to poll) disliked in general. But what you fail to mention is this interesting oddity: the provisions of the ACA are very popular. From TIME (http://goo.gl/wlu5B):

    "... Polls consistently [show] that although Americans dislike the law overall, they like many of its components when asked about them individually. Polls also show that misconceptions are common. The AP survey, for instance, indicates that 65% of people believe the law will probably increase the federal deficit, despite estimates that it will reduce the federal debt by some $140 billion over 10 years."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great article in the PD doc. So nice to see at least one doc speaking out! Where are all the rest?! All you docs should get together and put a stop to this nonsense.

    I have Tobyphobia. His smokerphobia sodaphobia and fatsophobia scare me.

    And I don't enjoy being stuck to the EMR fingerprint scaner>up to twelve attempts or more for one pill. Ugggg! Nursing is no fun and getting worse! Love ya doc. Godspeed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is priceless (PPACA, page 142):

    SEC. 1555. FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS.

    No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage
    shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.
    ___

    While the Act contains "Individual Responsibility" (Sec 1501-02) and "Employer Responsibility" (Sec 1511-15) provisions ("mandates"), I'm not sure what the purpose of this Sec 1555 is -- other than explicitly permitting private carrier opt-outs for any proposed "public option".

    Also interesting are the Congressional "Findings" [Sec 1501(a)(1&2)(A-H)] via which they lay out the utilitarian justification for the insurance mandates, after which they provide a SCOTUS "Commerce Clause" red herring case, United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (322 U.S. 533 (1944))

    ReplyDelete
  5. While it's true that 50% oppose the Affordable Care Act, 13% oppose it because it's not liberal enough (37% oppose it because it's too liberal), 43% support it, and 7% have no opinion.

    So a total of 56% either support the ACA as it is, or want it more liberal.

    The notion that people oppose it because it's too liberal does not coincide with reality.

    More info here: http://goo.gl/vzupd

    ReplyDelete
  6. Common Sense

    Impeccably Presented

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's interesting to look back at ACA discussions, and without bewraying my own details, I can see that insurance companies made a pack that conatively ignored the long-term profit of shareholders, and even the existence of their own industry.

    This fugacious arrangement was a mutually beneficial blueprint but the 2014 vote may be the public's punishment; Ironically, I don't think the Republicans are capable of redhibition.

    The only hope Obi-Wan Kenobi, is from physicians themselves -oddly, by reversing the model in which they sought financial stability with the introduction of the insurance industry.

    Do physicians have the business acumen to take a temporary painful stand which would ultimately guarantee their economic control? I lean towards no.

    The medical profession/practitioners would have to get use to eating crackers and peanuts -if you're lucky- and forgo filet Mignon.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary