Romney’s Success Contrasts Sharply With Obama’s Record

Monday, June 25, 2012 11:01 AM

By: Ronald Kessler

DATE:           June 28, 2012
FROM:           Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, US Conference of Catholic Bishops

Supreme Court decision does not address fundamental flaws in the law

 Legislation still needed to fix conscience, abortion funding, immigration problems

WASHINGTON-Today the United States Supreme Court issued a decision upholding as a tax the provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires individuals to purchase a health plan-the so-called "individual mandate."

            For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have been and continue to be consistent advocates for comprehensive health care reform to ensure access to life-affirming health care for all, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable.  Although the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) did not participate in these cases and took no position on the specific questions presented to the Court, USCCB's position on health care reform generally and on ACA particularly is a matter of public record.  The bishops ultimately opposed final passage of ACA for several reasons.

            First, ACA allows use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions, contradicting longstanding federal policy.  The risk we identified in this area has already materialized, particularly in the initial approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of "high risk" insurance pools that would have covered abortion.

            Second, the Act fails to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context.  We have provided extensive analyses of ACA's defects with respect to both abortion and conscience.  The lack of statutory conscience protections applicable to ACA's new mandates has been illustrated in dramatic fashion by HHS's "preventive services" mandate, which forces religious and other employers to cover sterilization and contraception, including abortifacient drugs.

            Third, ACA fails to treat immigrant workers and their families fairly.  ACA leaves them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money.  This undermines the Act's stated goal of promoting access to basic life-affirming health care for everyone, especially for those most in need.

OBAMA-CARE SURVIVES...OR DOES IT?
A VICTORY FOR THE PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION...OR IS IT?

The U.S. Supreme Court did what it is supposed to do, and also what it does regularly:

• it correctly interpreted the Commerce Clause as not being so wide as to legitimize the insurance purchase mandate;
• it correctly interpreted the 10th Amendment as to prohibit some Federal mandates on the States in this Republic, in this case the forced expansion of Medicaid on an unwilling State;
• it acted as the 800 lb. gorilla: "It sits where it wants to sit", calling the insurance mandate a "tax", thereby opening the door to Federal penalties for many other undesirable personal activities - in this case undesirable because non-covered individuals parasitize the health care system;
• It left to Congress the duty and right to interpret the political desires of the people through legislation by Congress...and not by the Court. 

And now, President Obama and his ultra-liberal cabal must defend this behemoth against many public adversaries...and especially against the legitimate charge of being economic idiocy, both at the micro- and macro- levels. 

If the Republican Party cannot articulate clear arguments against this law and for proper health care reform, they deserve to lose in November, at all levels of government.  

Once again, a worthwhile reading list is offered for your consideration.

• "Barack Obama: The Drone Warrior", by Charles Krauthammer, in The Day Monday, June 4, 2012, pA4.  Thumping a puny chest. 
• "Any State With The Right Reason", WSJ Editorial, Wednesday May 30, 2012, pA12.  Nineteen States now get a pass on No Child Left Behind, thanks to the Teachers' Unions.  "Back To The Future".
• "Targeting John Roberts", WSJ Editorial, Tuesday, May 22, 2012, pA16.  The Left tries to intimidate the High Court on ObamaCare, accusing it of being "activist" while ignoring Marbury v Madison: the case that established the obligation of the Supreme Court to overturn unconstitutional laws.  
• "Why Obama Strikes Out In Court", by Ilya Shapiro, WSJ Wednesday, June 6, 2012, pA15.  "Three unanimous Supreme Court decisions against the government suggest that the administration has a faulty view of federal power."  And this, from our "Professor of Constitutional Law".

U.S. HEALTH CARE REFORM: A PRIMER

Introduction:

As a practicing physician for 55 years, and as an attorney practicing and studying Health Care Law for the last 28 years, I have been writing and publishing on this subject for decades.  Much  of this production is available on relevant sections of my web site (www.asthma-drsprecace.com).

In fact, an early publication, dating back to 1978, could be re-published with only minor revision…reflecting how little progress our society has made in addressing the real issues of Health Care Reform. 

The “Accountable Care Act” (aka ACA and ObamaCare) is a Christmas Tree of “wants” that gives short shrift to the real needs awaiting health care reform.  As such, that ode to political expediency needs to be repealed and replaced. 

“With what”, you say.  Alright: ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING.

1. Nearly half of health care expenditures in this country are directly life-style related: obesity, tobacco use, alcohol abuse, illicit drug use, irresponsible motor vehicle practices, the governmental support of unhealthy personal practices like abortion, children out of wed-lock, defending failed schooling, etc.  These practices should be heavily taxed and otherwise discouraged instead of being supported as “personal choices”. 
2. A large percentage of health care costs incurred by individuals and by society occur during the last 6 months of a person’s life.  This, while a strong majority of adults support Advanced Directives…and a small minority of them actually have such “personal choice” instructions to guide their loved ones and their physicians.  Furthermore, physicians should recognize that they have an ethical obligation to refrain from offering “futile care”. 
3. At least 20% of health care costs represent “Defensive Medicine”, defined as actions taken by health care providers predominantly to protect themselves from allegations of “medical mal-practice” adjudicated in a lucrative and unnecessarily adversarial system.  The current practices should be replaced by Health Care Courts similar to Patent Courts and Bankruptcy Courts.  Only in that way can Justice be achieved and defensive medicine minimized. 
4. The great need in the existing system of health care delivery is Coordination of Care among the increasing number of medical specialists and other health care providers involved in much if not most of current patient care.  Such services are time-consuming and require a broad - based knowledge of Medicine to be effective.  They can be provided by any one of a patient’s physicians who is willing and who has the necessary level of insight and expertise.  And they must be paid for adequately!
5. There must be established and enforced – by society as a whole and not by the Medical Profession – a system of Prioritization (Rationing!)  - among the many services and potential recipients of those services.  Coverage of cosmetic surgery and of Viagra does not rise to the level in importance of immunizations.  Right now, cynical efforts are being made to force physicians to make such decisions through unethical mechanisms such as “accountable care organizations” which place a physician’s self-interest in direct opposition to the interests of his or her patients. 
6. Payment for all medical care, subject to clearly defined exceptions for indigence and serious medical necessity, should require at a 20% co-pay by the patient.  The patient must be a serious first decision-maker in his quest for medical care.  For, once a patient enters a physician’s office, the cost is generated and the service is provided.  The physician cannot and will not be the arbiter of the “need” for the care requested – or demanded. 

A comment about the much-discussed “Electronic Medical Records”.  These have been given a very high priority and much pressure by our “leaders”…not because they are so important, but because they are the easiest of the above issues to address.  Easiest, but not in-expensive and definitely disruptive of the vital eye-to-eye physician / patient and physician / physician relationships on which all good medical care rests. 

Time to Kill the Law of the Sea Treaty—Again

If the Senate ratifies it, China will have its best weapon yet to limit U.S. action in Asia.

By JOHN BOLTON And DAN BLUMENTHAL

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST)—signed by the U.S. in 1994 but never ratified by the Senate—is showing some signs of life on Capitol Hill, even as new circumstances make it less attractive than ever. With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims.

At issue is China's intensified effort to keep America's military out of its "Exclusive Economic Zone," a LOST invention that affords coastal states control over economic activity in areas beyond their sovereign, 12-mile territorial seas out to 200 miles. Properly read, LOST recognizes exclusive economic zones as international waters, but China is exploiting the treaty's ambiguities to declare "no go" zones in regions where centuries of state practice clearly permit unrestricted maritime activity.

Take the issues of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, both by air and sea. LOST is silent on these subjects in the exclusive zones, so China claims it can regulate (meaning effectively prohibit) all such activity. Beijing also brazenly claims—exploiting Western green sensibilities—that U.S. naval vessels pollute China's exclusive zone, pollution being an activity the treaty permits coastal states to regulate out to 24 miles.

China wants to deny American access to its nearby waters so it can have its way with its neighbors. Beijing is building a network of "anti-access" and "area denial" weapons such as integrated air defenses, submarines, land-based ballistic and cruise missiles, and cyber and anti-satellite systems designed to make it exceedingly hazardous for American ships and aircraft to traverse China's exclusive zone or peripheral seas.

If the Senate ratifies the treaty, we would become subject to its dispute-resolution mechanisms and ambiguities. Right now, since we are the world's major naval power, our conduct dominates state practice and hence customary international law—to our decided advantage.

This dispute is not really about law. China simply does not want the U.S. military to gather intelligence near its shores. And other nations quietly support China's position, including Russia, Iran, Brazil and India. Given China's incessant incursions into the exclusive zones of other Asian nations such as Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, these states may seek to restrict international maritime activities in their exclusive zones as well, further complicating U.S. efforts.

All Washington wants is to continue doing what it has been doing since it became a maritime power: use its Navy to enhance international peace and security, deter conflict, reassure allies, and collect intelligence. LOST undercuts these strategic imperatives, and that is why it has always been a bad idea for the U.S.—a formula for endless legal maneuvering and the submission of conflicting claims to the treaty's international tribunal, where our prospects are uncertain at best.

One hopes India and Japan will stop reflexively supporting LOST. They have significant alternatives to check China's growing power, including closer cooperation with the United States. The treaty is not an answer—it is only a beguiling, flawed escape hatch from the hard work America and others must do to meet China's challenge.

That hard work must include properly funding and equipping the Navy and exercising it in China's exclusive zones, including especially on intelligence missions, based on long-established state practice. Together with diplomacy to prevent nascent conflicts from escalating, these steps will reassure allies of full U.S. support in resolving disputes with China.

Mr. Bolton served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006. Mr. Blumenthal was a senior country director for China and Taiwan in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Both are fellows at the American Enterprise Institute.