Riehl World View

Landmark Legal Asked To File Brief In Florida ObamaCare Appeal

Via Mark Levin's Facebook page. You can actually download the brief here.

Landmark was asked by counsel for the states to join in this suit, having already participated in the Virginia case. We filed our brief today.

Founded in 1976, Landmark's long record of accomplishment has made it one of the nation's most effective and successful conservative legal advocacy groups. No public interest law firm has had as substantive impact in its principal mission areas as Landmark....

Will Raising Debt Ceiling Advance ObamaCare?

Hmm. Via JstJoan at RedState. Read the details to see how rasing the debt ceiling would work to advance ObamaCare. The stakes just went up, Speaker Boehner.

House Republicans have uncovered, tucked away in Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), an UNLIMITED Obamacare implementation slush fund.

That’s right.  Unlimited.

 

The PATIENTS Act And ObamaCare

Several Republicans have re-introduced the PATIENTS Act: The Preserving Access to Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2011. It has particular relevance given the threat ObamaCare presents to America's health care system. More details below via an email.

Senator Jon Kyl and a group of Senators – including Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) have introduced critical legislation that seeks to protect the doctor and patient relationship from the oncoming onslaught of ObamaCare.

Known as the PATIENTS Act, the bill works to protect the individualized relationship between doctors and patients ensuring that new government rules and mandates that put a premium on cost never interfere with the practice of quality medicine.

To better understand how that will happen if ObamaCare is not defunded or repealed, it is critical to understand the nature of “comparative effectiveness research.”  In order to save money for the cost of socialist health care regimes, bureaucrats often play the “comparative effectiveness research” card to mandate that doctors provide inferior care and treatment that often does not work.

These studies for which there is nearly a billion dollars worth of funding in the ObamaCare bill become the basis of bureaucratic mandates that substitute the government’s judgment for that of a doctor.  For instance, if a government study says that drug X is as effective as drug Y (which is cheaper), the government will often begin to deny coverage for drug X forcing the doctor to use drug Y.  In some instances, patients only respond to drug X.  Doctors and patients should never be forced to take drugs that don’t work.  Doctor’s need to be able to make these decisions without interference from a bureaucrat.  That is what the Kyl bill seeks.

This is not a theoretical argument any longer.  The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the National Institute of Health has been conducting a study of the drugs Avastin and Lucentis.  Lucentis is and FDA approved drug that is highly effective is stopping macular degeneration – a disease of the eye.  The drug was tested and found safe to inject into the eye and patients report miraculous results.  Avastin, on the other hand, was never approved for such a purpose.  While effective in extending the life of cancer patients, it was never approved for eye injections.  But because Avastin is cheaper than Lucentis, the NIH has been studying whether the drug should be substituted for Lucentis for “off-label” use.

This effort appears to have hit a roadblock.  A Johns Hopkins University Study seems to indicate the dangers of such a scheme.  The Journal reports that using Avastin for this non- approved purpose showed an 11% higher risk in overall mortality and a 57% higher risk of hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident. "Data from this Medicare claims analysis suggest differences in the safety profile of Avastin versus Lucentis," the researchers concluded.

Quality, safety and effectiveness are paramount concerns over cost and those decisions are best made on the front line of the health care battle – in the doctor’s office.  Senator Kyl and his supporters understand this implicitly and hopefully the rest of the Congress will come to their senses soon.

So, I Guess Jim DeMint Can't Win With Jennifer Rubin

Jennifer Rubin highlights a blurb by Jim DeMint that's positive on Romney, suggesting DeMint may be sacrificing his conservative, Tea Party cred.

DeMint: “One of the reasons I endorsed Romney [in 2008] is his attempts to make private health insurance available at affordable prices,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), a GOP kingmaker.

DeMint blames Democrats in the Massachusetts State Legislature for adding many of the features to Romney’s plan that many on the right decry.

“It just depends on how he plays it. For me, I think he started with some good ideas that were essentially hijacked by the Democrat Legislature,” DeMint said.

Rubin: This is hooey on stilts, of course. The core concept of RomneyCare is the same as ObamaCare, namely the government mandate to buy health-care insurance. That was Romney’s idea, not the Massachusetts state legislators.

She alerts Philip Klein at Am Spec and he dutifully piles on. 

DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous

Then it falls to the Hill to provide an update.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) "would never consider" endorsing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for president again in 2012 unless Romney repudiates the health reforms he sought as governor, a source close to DeMint said Thursday.

"It's obvious Jim was just trying to be nice to the guy he backed over McCain, as many conservatives did in 2008," the source said. "But he would never consider backing Romney again unless he admits that his Massachusetts healthcare plan was a colossal mistake."

So, let's get this straight. When DeMint holds the line, he's a trouble-making, fringe conservative at war with his own party, even costing them elections. But if he throws a carrot to a fellow Republican who once backed him, obviously it's suddenly all a charade and he's not authentic. Jaysus, people, get a life. It's pretty simple and will play out during the campaign.

At some point, Romney will have to unequivocally state his position on ObamaCare and what he intends to do about it. Whether people believe him, or not, is between Romney and the voters and has nothing to do with Jim DeMint. We're still in the silly season.

If there's someone with a better conservative track record running and DeMint opts for Romney, instead, he'll have to explain that then. Most of the talk we're hearing now doesn't mean a thing. The GOP establishment isn't close to standing up strongly on spending. How about writing about that? As far as I can tell, Rubin is simply toeing the establishment line via both the Senate and the House. But today, it's stop the presses, I have a shot to take at Conservative Jim DeMint. WooHoo!!

Although the liberal punditocracy will coo about the number of no votes among Republicans, let’s look at those no votes. Among the feisty freshmen, 20 voted against the CR. In other words, 75 percent of the newly-elected hawks voted for this. And why shouldn’t they? As a senior Republican adviser put it, “In just the last five weeks, House Republicans have cut $10 billion in spending, which is unprecedented. The president and the Senate are moving in our direction, not the reverse, which means House Republicans have the momentum.”

In Contrast To Boehner, Pelosi "Drove Health Care Down GOP's Throat"

A one minute video clip of Richard Trumka praising Nancy Pelosi, saying, "we drove health care down Republican's throats."

They did. Sadly, this kind of makes it obvious that Pelosi has far more backbone than the current Speaker. All he talks about is negotiation and compromise, while feeding non-serious red meat to the base on ObamaCare repeal, or whatever.

As an aside, for anyone left still handwringing over O'Donnell or Angle, or any Tea Party Senate candidate that lost, can you imagine how weak a GOP majority in the Senate would have been, especially with a Mike Castle in the loop?

The Republicans clearly didn't deserve a Senate majority. It's beginning to look as though the House Republicans didn't much warrant one, either, though they can at least try and slow Obama until 2012. Boehner looks to be punting on most of the big fights.

The worst part of it is his co-opting of Tea Party Republicans. I guess we're going to have to throw out some of the new with the old in 2012 with more primary challenges.

Is This Why Christie Didn't Join ObamaCare Suit?

So, Christie "derides" ObamaCare? I honestly didn't know that. He certainly hasn't made it a key issue, also failing to join the many states that sued over it. On the other hand, his application for $39 million under it was treated "favorably" - and they're already after another $40 million for this year. Hmm, New Jersey is second only to California in terms of the dollars it received from it to prop up its ailing public worker health insurance fund.

Oh, and the program encourages states to continue the program, apparently. Imagine that. Well, that's not quite as bad as Mitch Daniels, who expanded public health care in Indiana, I guess. But it's close. Christie can't afford to do it, ... for now.

New Jersey’s beleaguered public worker health insurance fund got a nearly $39 million cash injection last year from a piece of the controversial federal health insurance law that Governor Christie derides as “Obamacare.”

Christie’s administration aggressively pursued the funding, a Treasury Department spokesman said, and is seeking payment for another $40 million already this year.

“We had to compete against other employers for the proceeds,” spokesman Andrew Pratt said in an e-mail. “Our application … got comparatively favorable treatment because it [was] filed very quickly after the application process began in July.”

New Jersey ranked second, behind California, among state governments receiving payouts from the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, according to a recent report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The program reimburses public- and private-sector employers and labor union benefit funds for some of the cost of providing health insurance to early retirees between ages 55 and 65.

The funding was designed to encourage employers that were providing early retiree insurance to keep doing so because coverage for older people who are not |yet eligible for Medicare can be prohibitively expensive, according to an HHS spokesman, Keith Maley.

Obama Appeals Vinson's Health Reform Ruling, GOP Hedges

He isn't just giving up on ObamaCare. But then, he isn't a Republican.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has appealed the ruling by a federal judge in Florida that the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional and therefore the entire law is void.

The appeal was filed on Tuesday in Atlanta with the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Via the Right Scoop, as pointed out by Mark Levin tonight (audio) - the GOP talks a good game but can't be relied upon to act when opportunities present. There are far too many Republicans just as content with running things from DC, as are the Democrats.

Levin says that Republicans are doing way too little in the way of spending and blames the leadership for being more interested in power than the future of the country. One of his big issues that he talks about is the fact that Michele Bachmann has uncovered over 100 billion that is currently being used to fund ObamaCare’s implementation, that was hidden in the ObamaCare legislation for this purpose. But instead of removing it with the recent CR (Continuing Resolution), they don’t even address it.

UK Offers Preview Of ObamaCare

So much for those non-existent death panels. This is precisely where ObamaCare is headed if we allow it to stand. The administration is already tipping its hand.

Dying cancer patients have been refused costly life-extending drugs on cost grounds despite a Government promise to end the "scandal" forever. Their requests have been rejected by regional health authorities who were accused of operating covert “blacklists” to restrict dozens of treatments to save money.

The story details how UK cancer patients are being refused access to critical life-extending drugs like Avastin due to cost. I've noted the issue previously and it's worth repeating.

Government regulators say the drug is too expensive. In order for doctors to prescribe the drug, patients must pass a government test to be designated an “exceptional case.”  But even in those cases, it's the government, not your physician, that picks and chooses who gets the benefit because in some instances, the government doesn't think the benefit will outweigh the costs.

England’s national health care system is falling apart. Now, unable, or unwilling, to afford new treatments and drugs, the government picks and chooses which patients get access to critical drugs like Avastin.

That is absolutely the same thing that looks to be beginning to play out here in America.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is attempting to “de-label” Avastin. Sure, the well off could still afford to buy it on the open market – but forget it if you have to rely upon health insurance.  Government wants to use this mechanism to try and leverage down health care costs. But it isn't really cost reduction; it's treatment reduction, or death panels, by another name.

Later this year, the FDA will allow the maker of Avastin the opportunity to appeal their decision.  Cancer advocacy groups like Susan Komen are already lining up to oppose the decision.  The FDA has one last chance to avoid turning America’s health care system into England’s.  On June 28th, the FDA will allow the maker of Avastin, and perhaps the patients benefiting from it, a chance to defend the drug.  Of course, the FDA will be the judge, jury and potentially the executioner at the hearing. Members of Congress from both parties are speaking out but time is running out.

Our health care system is at a critical juncture.  If the FDA is successful is denying the drug based on cost, creeping rationing will continue. The newspaper headlines from England give us a peek into America's future if the FDA gets its way.

GOP Using ObamaCare Vote PR To Counter Budget Weakness

There's a game the establishment GOP in DC has been playing and it's time to call them on it. Between the House and the Senate, more than once, you will see headlines like this:

House votes to defund health care law

At the very same time, they are taking actions like this.

Half of Republican Caucus, Especially Leadership and Old Guard, Votes With Democrats To Block Additional $22 Billion in Cuts

The anti-ObamaCare votes are great and perhaps needed. Yet, because of Obama's veto, they are going nowhere. The GOP seems to be using them to distract from the same weakness on spending we have been seeing from them for years.

They need to know they will not get away with this. The Tea Party is not finished. At this rate, we will continue to see more primaries and eventually, a call for new leadership. Conservatives and many common sense Americans are tired of the same old games. With new media, they will not get away with playing them, as they have for years.

Obama Picked A Bad Day To Be A Former Constitutional Law Prof

Some analysis via Mark Levin. Landmark Legal filed several amicus briefs in this case at the request of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Bryan Preston looks at some other aspects of the ruling; however, if the mandate goes down at the Supreme Court level, I'm not certain how any of it stands given the lack of severability. 

Today Federal District Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare:

1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance --  cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise;

2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers;

and 3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.