jimsweb.net

Sometimes insightful, often educational, always entertaining

An Unhealthy Health Care Debate

I guess it was too much to ask that when the University of Washington School of Law decided to hold a roundtable debate on the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act that they would actually have both sides of the argument represented, and that the panel members could refrain from showing their obvious contempt toward one side or the other.

I was however impressed with the moderator.

Feel free to watch, and you be the judge:

TVW - Washington State Public Affairs Network: MEDIA:University of Washington School of Law - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.
Posted: 04-01-2010 0:57 by jim® | with 9 comment(s)
Filed under: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Libby said:

I couldn't open the video. I just got a black screen. But I can guess from you comment what you think about the Constitutional challenges to the Health Care Reform Act and I can't resist offering you some advice:

Forget moving to Texas. I think you should relocate to Virginia. They have the strongest argument that will be presented in the courts, IMO. And that's why they are filing a separate lawsuit. They aren't just jumping on the bandwagon with the other 13[?] states. They have an actual Virginia Law that was passed by their legislature and signed by their governor that makes their argument a more legal challenge than the other states which are playing political games with their lawsuits.

Take for example Pennsylvania: Our attorney general is a Republican who is running for governor next election cycle. He has no backing for his filing of this lawsuit from either the Gov. [Ed Rendell-D] or the Pa. legislature, which have not said they support a challenge. In other words, he's winging it in order to gain political points with the Pa. Republicans IMHO. He is within his legal authority as attorney general of the state to do this and he doesn't need any approval from anyone. Perhaps he's motivated by his sense of outrage over this "unconstitutional" usurpation of power by the Feds? Hmmmmm...

# April 1, 2010 3:59 AM

jim® said:

Libby, thanks for your comment.  I have been actively involved in debating the Constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act.

I believe one of the reasons our country is so strong, so resilliant and has lasted for as long as it has is due to the Soverignty granted our States by the Constitution.

Although I personally agree with AG McKenna (Washington State) and the other State AG's; regardless, there should be no harm in making this law stand the Constitutionality test.

After all, what good is a law if it can't stand the muster of the court?

# April 1, 2010 11:16 AM

jim® said:

Admin Note:  Sorry about the video.  It seems that our blogging software doesn't like the embedding commands that our State's Public Television Network (TVW) is using.  I wish they would use an industry standard like Youtube for instance.

The link to the video is above.

I do not mind hearing the otherside of the debate, actually I welcome it.  However when you pick 4 panelists and they are to "debate" the Constitional merits of the Health Care Reform Act, you would expect that at least one of them would be on the opposite side of the others, which during this debate was not the case.

# April 1, 2010 11:19 AM

Libby said:

I agree, Jimr. I don't have a problem with challenging the law and giving it the "Constituionality" test in the courts. I just suspect the motives of some of the Attorneys General who are making the challenge.

# April 2, 2010 4:17 AM

jim® said:

I agree that the timing is suspect.  However, I don't question the motives of these individuals.  They are elected by the people in most states, and they have a duty to the people not the Governor.

It was apparent from the polls that the People did not want this specific Health Care Law.  I am not saying they didn't want Health Care Reform; however the way it was done was disrespectful to the People in my book.

# April 2, 2010 2:23 PM

Libby said:

I get your point. And I agree that an attorney general's job is to defend the people of their state, regardless of whether or not it goes against the will of the Governor of the state. Perhaps they should make sure the Legislature of their state agrees with them, since the Legislature is the duly elected representatives of the people. But I think the attorney general should make sure they are defending the "will of the people" in their state before they file a lawsuit against the Federal Govt. National surveys that indicate the "will of the people" nationally doesn't necessarily reflect the "will of the people" in that state. Perhaps they should take a poll or a survey of what the people in their respective state's think before they file that lawsuit. Don't you agree?  

# April 3, 2010 2:08 AM

jim® said:

I feel I should clarify my use of polls as a supportive argument for my thesis in my last comment.  Although, I support the use of polls to help determine a particular course of action, the key word is "help" - they should not be used as a scientific basis for final determination of an issue.

A better litmus test of the "will of the people" is as you suggested a resolution by the State Legislature.

I will agree that the Attorneys General should be aware of their constituents feelings toward a specific issue, and that this should weigh heavily on their decision; however, when making that decision they should be mindful that they do not violate their oath of office in the process.

To quote Edmund Burke, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

# April 3, 2010 2:51 AM

Eagle Watch said:

Polls are useful in determining policy, but not the Constitutionality of standing law.  Attorneys General, like Governors and legislaors, take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and if a legislature passes a law that appears to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of the AG to challenge it in court.  

One reason so many states are signing onto this one is that healthcare, as it stands, will put enormous financial hardship on the states, and most governors are probably asking their AGs to look for something that can be challenged.  

Polls are valuable, but should not be used to governm by, else you could replace the executive with an applause meter.  

# April 3, 2010 2:07 PM

Libby said:

You are both right in your defense of this issue. You have both pointed out that we are, after all, not a pure Athenean-Greek style Democracy. We are a Republic with duly elected representatives to carry out our will. I concede the point.

I plan to study the map of the 14 states that are challenging this law in order to find out how many of them have Republican Governors and how many have Democratic. I think that's relevant. Do either of you know, off-hand? I still think politics is at work here.

# April 4, 2010 4:01 AM
Leave a Comment

(required) 

(required) 

(optional)

(required)