Featured Post

Is the new professionalism and ACP's new ethics really just about following guidelines?

The Charter ( Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium.A Physician's Charter) did not deal with just the important relationship of ...

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Is government by whim the social justice that Obama advocates congratulate themselves about?

Obamacare mandated a percentage of premiums be used by health insurance company for patient care. Several large employers ( McDonalds and others) complained that would not allow them to continues to offer low premium health coverage to their lower paid employees.( It should be noted that there is some controversy if McDonald really complained or not, but that is not the major point).

The point is that the Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius waived the requirements for one year for certain employers and one large union welfare fund.

Ed Morrissey made this comment regarding this incident:

The Rule of Law depends on an environment with clear regulation and unbiased enforcement. From the start, ObamaCare lacked any clarity in regulation. Congress filled the bill with the phrase "The Secretary shall determine" in place of establishing rules and regulations for the massive regulatory regime Congress created. Now, the White House has added arbitrary enforcement to uncertain regulation and opaque processes. This is not the Rule of Law, but the Whim of Autocracy.

Obamacare contains hundreds of pages with anything but clear regulation and to expect unbiased enforcement is to believe in the power of fairy dust so much power being given by the four little words found throughout the bill "the secretary (of HHS) shall determine".

Both the AMA and ACP have congratulated themselves for their support of the bill because it served "social justice".

Are the actions of the HHS secretary an example of this social justice? Social justice by favoritism (catalyzed by the proximity of the upcoming election in this instance) is what they got.

What else they ( and all of us) may have gotten is more regime uncertainty. This is a term or concept developed and emphasized by the economist Robert Higgs. Higgs's thesis is that at least an important element in the prolongation of the great depression was the business uncertainty brought about by the actions of FDR. Simply put they were afraid to invest because they didn't know what the administration in Washington would do next. See here.

Higgs suggest a similar situation exist now. We have had some but not all major financial institutions bailed out with tax payers money,we have had some auto manufacturers bailed out and we now have some employers exempted for some provisions of a massive new law with powers so sweeping that one of its major effect is a deep and wide uncertainty.

Nancy Pelosi's comment that we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it was only partly true.When enforcement or administration of law is arbitrary we will be finding out piece by piece what it means with no way of predicting what will happen next.

1 comment:

Andrew_M_Garland said...

James Madison About Our Recession and political situation.
10/07/10 - Clayton Cramer's Blog [edited excerpts]

James Madison was a Founding Father of the US. In 1788 he published Federalist No.62 about the effect of bad law on the people, their freedom, and their investment in the future.

There are TV shows about how Nostradamus supposedly predicted the future. James Madison and the Founders knew about people and politics, and truly has described the future.

•  About the 2700 page health care bill:
It won't matter that the laws are made by men chosen by the people, if the laws be so voluminous or incoherent that they cannot be read or understood; if the laws be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man can guess what they will be tomorrow.

•  Why George Soros supports Democrats:
Public instability gives an unreasonable advantage to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce, revenue, or property presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences. Such laws are made for the few, not for the many.

•  Why employers won't hire right now:
What prudent merchant will risk his fortunes in new commerce when his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will invest if he may be a victim to an inconstant government?

AMG:  Government, political tricks, and the desire for power have not changed much in 222 years. Our founding fathers knew this. That is why there is a Constitution. The Constitution is being ignored, and we are living in a tyranny.