Letter to Honorable Mary Landrieu 1-4

[domehead]

Dear Senator Landrieu:

I read with interest your editorial comment in The Times Picayune today.

I am a registered Republican, but hue more to the center of government involvement. I am a Libertarian at heart.

Let me begin my response by agreeing with you that health care reform is necessary and should be considered urgent. However, that said, I urge you to slow the process to the greatest extent possible, until the legislation is written in the best interest of the country as a whole.

I have been practicing law for 37 years. In that time, I have participated many times in debate over legislation, as well as the drafting of bills, and the give-and-take of administrative rule making. Although I did not really want to do so, at the urging of my wife, I began reading H.R. 3200. I have not finished it, and doubt that I will. But I read Title A of the bill, which is enough to know it is a bad bill, no matter what the rest says.

I will not waste your time or mine debating whether it does or does not include paying for abortions, or access by undocumented aliens to free (or government paid/subsidized) care, or alleged death panels, etc. Those are details. I am much more concerned about the overall fabric.

First of all, this bill would create an incredible panoply of new federal bureaucracies and bureaucrats/apparatchiks. The array of provisions describing (in a nebulous, Washingtonian manner) these new bodies are incredible and the response by Congress should be stentorian in opposition. Yet, all I hear in the debate are concerns about who gets what. There should be a hue and cry by Congressmen, such as yourself, protesting this extraordinary delegation of power and authority.

But, realizing such delegation has taken place before, it was not entirely surprising to me to see it happening again. What does make it wholly unpalatable, however, is the absolute nature of it. (You may remember the adage that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”) There are provisions throughout the bill which state clearly that “There shall be no administrative or judicial review…” of decisions/rulings/findings/etc., on a number of topics, made by the Secretary, the Commissioner, or “others,” in these newly created octopus-like federal agencies.

Senator, this denial of review at either the administrative (agency) level or the judicial (courts, including the Supreme Court) level is an unconstitutional denial of the basic right of access. It flaunts the separation of powers and our basic system of checks and balances. It is a confirmation that our heretofore Republican form of government is rapidly being transformed into a statist system. Like it or not, that is socialistic. I do not know how you or any other member of Congress can vote for a bill which so openly repudiates the fundamentals of our foundation.

Assuming, arguendo, that such provisions will be stricken from the final bill or statute (whether by prior action in Congress or by judicial order after they are successfully challenged on a constitutional basis), that still leaves a few other issues that trouble me.

Your statements in your editorial comment today include: “Continuity: Workers and businesses who have health insurance and are satisfied with their plan and doctor can keep it. Government will not get in the way.” Au contraire, Senator. Under H.R. 3200, the definition (and limitation) on a “grandfathered” plan make it clear that the instant there is any change within an existing individual plan, that plan must then comply with the requisite “essential benefits package” also mandated by the bill. Similarly, all work-based plans must also include no less than the “essential benefits package” after 5 years.

It might seem that such a requirement is meaningless or harmless, but once one sees the content of that “essential benefits package,” the problem becomes evident. The package requires that every plan include no less than certain listed benefits. Several are obvious and I would agree, essential. But, as a 60 year old, with a 58 year old wife, clear of child-bearing years, and with all children grown, I do not understand why my plan, individual or work-based, must include pregnancy/maternity benefits, plus well baby/well child coverage. I also cannot fathom why I (or anyone else who does not want or need them) must have coverage for dental, as well as vision and aural (hearing). These are all traditionally optional coverages, the exclusion of which has heretofore meant a lower premium.

Under H.R. 3200, however, every insured must have at least all those coverages and, unless qualified for premium assistance, bear the full cost of the premiums for them. So, if my existing plan does not include such coverages – by my choice – why should the government be allowed to force me to change to a more expensive coverage I do not want, just because a single element of my existing individual plan is modified after Y1 commences, or after 5 years of my work-based coverage?