Posts Tagged President Obama

A Non-Scandal in Wisconsin

An ultra liberal special interest group called One Wisconsin Now has accused Republican Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen’s office of a “gross abuse of power” and putting “politics above the law.”  Exactly what offense did Van Hollen’s office commit?  Basically being against President Obama’s government take-over of the health care system and seeking information about joining other AGs in a Constitutional challenge to this monstrosity.

If that sounds like a big nothing-burger to you, you’re not alone.  The most interesting thing here is not the non-scandal, but the extent to which a tangled web of special interest groups is spending millions of dollars to try to turn policy disagreements into criminal acts – or at least create an appearance of impropriety that can be used in the next campaign.

One Wisconsin Now is the political arm of the Institute for One Wisconsin.  The Institute is bankrolled in part by – drum roll please – hedge fund billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Institute.  What does One Wisconsin do with the $$?  Well, some of it gets funneled to another political operation called the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund.   Other members of the club include politically-motivated unions like the SEIU and AFSCME.

One Wisconsin Now also tries to drag down the American Justice Partnership, which I run, for contributing to the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) – a group dedicated to supporting conservative, rule-of-law AGs such as JB Van Hollen.

Groups like One Wisconsin Now know how deeply unpopular Obamacare is with the people of Wisconsin.  They understand the bill was steamrollered through Congress despite questions over the constitutionality of several provisions.  Now they’re trying to browbeat and intimidate AGs like JB Van Hollen for daring to challenge their dream of socialized medicine.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The Importance of the Attorney General

As expected eleven state Attorneys General are bringing suit challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform bill just signed into law by President Obama. The suit focuses on the law’s mandate that individuals purchase health insurance. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

The threatened action suggests the controversial measure is about to move from the legislative realm into what could become a protracted and messy fight in the courts. The attorneys general say they will sue once President Obama signs the bill into law. They are pledging to take their battle all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Newly elected Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli lays out the crux of the argument from the article penned by Warren Richey:

“Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, there would be no limit to the US Constitution’s commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do.”

For years we’ve promoted the importance of the office of AG and this development cements our belief. No matter how this turns out it’s great to see these 11 Attorneys General standing up against big government mandates.

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Bingo!

Atlanta anesthesiologist Dr. Tod Rubin says in an op/ed piece in today’s Washington Times what many of us have been thinking:

The suggestion by President Obama to provide a paltry $50 million to institute a medical liability pilot program is just another example of how insincere, deceptive and ignorant he remains on the substantive issues affecting our health care system. To infer that giving each state $1 million to study the medical malpractice liability issues it faces is laughable.

Dr. Rubin, who is a board member of Docs 4 Patient Care, presents a common-sense three-point plan to combat the problem of abusive medical malpractice lawsuits. Fear of such lawsuits force physicians to practice defensive medicine that in turn increases the costs of our health care system by $200 billion to $400 billion per year.

The Obama plan to provide $1m per state to study the issue is too clever by a half. The President hopes to fool us into thinking he’s serious about med mal reform when the reality is that there is plenty of evidence that reform could save hundreds of billions of health care dollars each year. The President is both unwilling to stand up to the trial bar that funds his political operation and unwilling to shoot straight with the American public. No wonder his health care proposal is in such choppy waters.

Read Dr. Rubin’s full piece here.

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

The President’s Tort Two-Step

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL | OPINION JOURNAL

Opinion: Potomac Watch | September 11, 2009

Special-interests and the health-care status quo.

by Kimberley A. Strassel

On Wednesday the president told Congress “I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” In fact, the administration is standing by to allow its most special, special interest to drive this debate. What the tort bar wants, the tort bar gets. Health insurers should be so lucky.

The legal question has become the starkest symbol of a broken health discussion, and offers insight into this presidency. For Republicans, legal reform has become a litmus test, proof that Democrats have no interest in a deal, and therefore a reason to step back. For many Americans, legal reform has become proof that President Obama is more interested in an ideological triumph than his stated goal of lowering health costs.

Tort reform is a policy no-brainer. Experts on left and right agree that defensive medicine—ordering tests and procedures solely to protect against Joe Lawyer—adds enormously to health costs. The estimated dollar benefits of reform range from a conservative $65 billion a year to perhaps $200 billion. In context, Mr. Obama’s plan would cost about $100 billion annually. That the president won’t embrace even modest change that would do so much, so quickly, to lower costs, has left Americans suspicious of his real ambitions.

It’s also a political no-brainer. Americans are on board. Polls routinely show that between 70% and 80% of Americans believe the country suffers from excess litigation. The entire health community is on board. Republicans and swing-state Democrats are on board. State and local governments, which have struggled to clean up their own civil-justice systems, are on board. In a debate defined by flash points, this is a rare area of agreement. Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Selling out doctors to pay off trial lawyers

Politico

By NEWT GINGRICH & WAYNE OLIVER | 9/3/09 2:26 PM EDT

politicologo

Civil justice reform, which is sometimes referred to as “tort reform,” is not addressed in any health reform bill now being considered by Congress. As a matter of fact, civil justice reform is rarely being discussed even though it should be a critical component of every discussion and in every legitimate health reform bill.

Physicians understand its importance. And so do the American people. Many are beginning to wonder why it’s not in any bill.

Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, at a town hall meeting in Virginia last week said, “Tort reform is not in the bill because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers. And, that is the plain and simple truth.”

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Obama v. the Tort Lawyers

- The Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2009

The president’s Auto Task Force worked hard to shield the new GM from jackpot justice.

Ask a CEO or small business owner to list his biggest economic problems, and near the top is always the depredations of the tort bar. Would you believe Uncle Sam feels the same way when he’s the owner?

Apparently so, if we can judge from the sensible behavior of the Obama Administration’s Auto Task Force. General Motors could emerge from bankruptcy as soon as today, leaving the federal government with a majority stake in the car maker. And it turns out the task force worked hard to shield the new GM from jackpot justice. Read the rest of this entry »

, , ,

No Comments

Shift Toward State Rules on Product Liability

-The Wall Street Journal

By ALICIA MUNDY and BRENT KENDALL

WASHINGTON — In a sweeping order Wednesday, President Barack Obama called for a rollback of Bush administration regulations designed to protect companies from product-liability lawsuits in state courts.

The memo didn’t name specific industries but it could affect a wide range of consumer products subject to both federal and state regulation.

Companies have long complained about having to deal with 50 different state rulebooks, and the Bush administration aggressively took up the issue. It encouraged federal agencies to issue rules pre-empting state laws and declared that a single federal standard held sway.

Read the rest of this entry »

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Data Recovery Software