Volatility

October 10, 2010

Kangaroo Court in Action: The Health Racket Mandate

 

A federal judge has given the first adverse ruling against one of the many lawsuits declaring Obama’s health racket Mandate unconstitutional. The ruling demonstrates the “logic” of a corrupt corporatist ideologue and how he views the Constitution. A corporatist assumes as the god-given order of things that the purpose of America is to be mined by powerful corporate interests. He then views the Constitution purely instrumentally toward this goal. As we’ll see, this judge views the artificial, ideologically fabricated and imposed “market” as sacrosanct and beyond the Constitution’s purview. He views the written Constitution, and by extension the sovereign people’s inherent constitution, as subordinate to the corporate imperative. This is the essence of corporatist ideology. It views sovereignty itself as reposing in corporations, not the people. The constitution is only the corporate constitution. The written Constitution is therefore the servant of corporations.
 
A judge like this might even try to argue that the fact that the Constitution never once mentions the word “corporation” is proof of his thesis that corporations are not below the Constitution, but above it. At any rate he’d argue that the absence of such specification gives him license to interpret things that way.
 
The human truth is the exact opposite. Society exists in the first place only of, by, and for human beings. Sovereignty reposes only in the people. The constitution can never be anything but of and for the political health of the people. The written Constitution can only be legitimately interpreted toward this human imperative. Corporations have no right to exist at all, and certainly have no right to act against the people. Wherever they do, any government has an affirmative obligation to smash them. Where it fails to do so, let alone where it actively supports corporate organized crime, it abandons all sovereignty, legitimacy, and authority. The people then have the right and obligation to repudiate the system, smash the criminals themselves, and redeem society on a human basis.
 
Let’s go to the case. The suit claims the health racket bailout in general, and in particular the racket Mandate, violates the Commerce Clause, the 5th and 10th amendments, the Free Exercise of religion*, and that it’s an unconstitutional tax. The decision rejects the demand for a preliminary injunction and throws the case out completely. The decision focuses on rejecting the Commerce claim, also rejects part of the tax claim, and declares it doesn’t need to reach another part.
 
[*Some of the litigants are anti-abortion and claim the Mandate penalty, i.e. the poll tax, violates their religious beliefs because the fungible money would help facilitate abortion.
 
While that's not my angle, this bill nevertheless does violate the separation of church and state by allowing a religious exemption to those "who oppose health insurance in principle" (decision p. 11), but not for those like me who oppose health insurance on principle on secular philosophical grounds.
 
You'd think we'd settled this with the SCOTUS decision that conscientious objector status can't be limited to those whose pacifism is religiously based, but must also encompass secular pacifism. How could the same principle not be universal?
 
But no, everywhere you look since at least the 90s, there are exemptions which unconstitutionally apply only to religious objectors but not to philosophical ones. So far the courts seem fine with this. This bill and this decision represent another example of this creeping theocratic phenomenon.]
 
In the so-called “factual background” the judge launches right into the propaganda. He intones:
 

The Health Care Reform Act seeks to reduce the number of uninsured Americans
and the escalating costs they impose on the health care system.
(p. 2)

 
and follows with a series of details. This is standard political fraud from the bench. As a matter of dogma, the judge is supposed to assume the legislature is a public servant and not a criminal cabal. So the court’s default is to aid and abet organized crime in the legislature. At the very least, even if the court is going to strike down an act (because of some ideological squabble among elites, not because the act is against the people), it still engages in this pretense of legislative good faith. That’s SCOTUS dogma going back a long way. (Anyone who follows the MSM is familiar with the how it’s their established practice to report as fact the self-proclaimed intentions and mindset of elites, especially political elites. The courts have the same practice.)
 
Everywhere else judges are supposed to infer motives from actions. Why is that reversed here, and the dogmatically assumed motive is used to tendentiously interpret the action? It’s because here the system is functioning as an integrated machine. Elsewhere it’s the system against the people or individuals, so there the interpretive dynamic is reversed.
 
So here this judge proclaims that the Mandate is “integral to the legislative effort”, but everything he claims about what that effort is, and the constitutionality of the effort itself, is a lie. The Mandate is indeed integral to the effort, but the effort’s intention and goal is the opposite of Congressional and judicial lies. The effort is of course not to ensure better health care for more people at lower cost. A Congress who wanted to do that would’ve instituted Single Payer. Period.
 
The effort is to bail out the parasitic insurance rackets, who already have an institutionalized anti-competitive monopoly, by absolving them of having to compete with non-participation as well. That’s the one and only objective of Obamacare.
 
The decision moves quickly (p. 3) to bashing alleged deadbeats, the mythical free riders at the ER. But the entire premise of “the legislative effort” is to bail out a tremendous but politically powerful deadbeat and parasite, the insurance racket. So right at the outset we can see the judge’s bad faith. It’s not possible to be concerned about free riders but still support this deadbeat bailout bill. So on its face anyone who supports the bill (or finds it constitutional) but claims to be concerned about free riders is lying. Again, if Congress had been concerned about free riders, it would have enacted Single Payer instead of bailing out the insurance parasite. So on its face the judge’s entire rationale regarding the legislative intent is invalid.
 
We also have the moral fact that anyone amid a system based on organized corruption, legalized fraud, and massive robbery in the form of corporate welfare who would ever make a top-down anti-deadbeat argument must be a vile immoral criminal himself. It’s not possible to face such monumental system crime and still say the individual deadbeat is just as bad, or to bother with him at all. And then there’s the fact that the vast majority of individuals in that position are not deadbeats at all, but the victims of an aggressive kleptocracy which has mugged them into poverty.
 
As I said, this proves the judge is corrupt and acts in moral bad faith, so his “legal” reasoning must be judged from that point of view.
 
He has the haughty nerve to claim that it’s individuals, mugging victims who show up at the ER, who are “shifting costs onto third parties”. But the fact is that we the people ARE the victimized “third party” here, while the rackets and their bought politicians and judges are the only market “participants”, the only “stakeholders”, as their own flunkies would concede.
 
In a gesture of noblesse oblige the judge grants that the plaintiffs had standing to sue (p. 4). (But not before a lecture on the monetization of standing, how as far as the courts are concerned the only measure of citizenship is property, and the only measure of values or injury to those values is a monetary injury. This filthy doctrine must always be enforced. As usual, the first priority is to deny true citizen access to the law.)
 
The judge, as a petty crook aping a benevolent despot, magnanimously grants that a person without much money may already be feeling trepidation over the Mandate and acting accordingly, so standing is granted. The whole passage is sickening. The judge’s hypocritical, bloodless, wonkish, trickle-down “generosity” is even more repulsive than open, naked greed. How could any decent person even discuss this without outrage over the fact that those already suffering from the depredations of the FIRE sector gangsters are to, by the judge’s own admission*, be made to suffer even more in order to pay further extortion to some of the most worthless and repellant criminals afflicting us today?
 
[*P. 8: "..the injury-in-fact in this case is the present financial pressure experienced by plaintiffs due to the requirements of the Individual Mandate."
 
This pressure is being put on by already-rich robbers who want to steal even more, and helping them commit this further robbery is the one and only intent and goal of this bill. That's the vision of "civilization" and "law" this judge seeks to uphold.]
 
We get to the Commerce Clause. Here’s the first time I’ve come across the Orwellian name for the Mandate: the “Shared Responsibility Payment” (p.11). Deciphering the totalitarian code: It’s the Full Responsibility of those who do all the work to hand over almost all they produce as extortion Payment to wealthy parasites who have and assume Zero Responsibility.
 
The judge is honest about this: The Mandate is regulation of “inactivity, or a person’s mere existence within our Nation’s boundaries.” He admits it’s a poll tax.
 

The crux of plaintiffs’ argument is that the federal government has never attempted
to regulate inactivity, or a person’s mere existence within our Nation’s boundaries, under
the auspices of the Commerce Clause. It is plaintiffs’ position that if the Act is found
constitutional, the Commerce Clause would provide Congress with the authority to regulate
every aspect of our lives, including our choice to refrain from acting.
(p.11)

 
The decision says this case involves the third aspect of Interstate Commerce – “those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Since that’s as vague as can be, and since by the reasoning here it can apply to literally anything the system wants it to, the judge confirms what we who oppose the Mandate always said. This Mandate is not only a crime in itself but a totalitarian precedent. If it goes through it can serve as the template for mandates to buy literally anything the system wants to force upon us.
 

The Supreme Court has expanded the reach of the Commerce Clause to reach
purely local, non-commercial activity, simply because it is an integral part of a broader
statutory scheme that permissibly regulates interstate commerce. Two cases, decided
sixty years apart, demonstrate the breadth of the Commerce power and the deference
accorded Congress’s judgments. (p. 12)

 
The decision discusses two highly disputed cases, Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Reich, as alleged precedents. With seeming lack of self-awareness he trumpets the striking down of anti-gun and anti-domestic violence laws as the SCOTUS philosophically “placing limits” on Congress.
 
Um, no. The judges on the court majorities simply support gun rights but don’t support marijuana rights, and don’t care about domestic violence. That’s the one and only difference which went into these decisions – how the subject of each case squared with their non-judicial ideology. The judicial ideology almost without exception is servant to the political ideology. Scalia’s anti-federalist vote in Gonzales was a spotlight example of how fraudulent his ideological pretensions are. He simply doesn’t like marijuana, period.
 
(To be clear, I reject all four of those laws on federalist grounds, just as that’s one of my objections to this bill. Any consistent person who really has a legal principle here would decide all five cases the same way, rejecting or upholding.)
 
The decision admits the novelty of the case.
 

Plaintiffs in the present case focus on the common fact that each
of the regulations that survived Supreme Court scrutiny under the Commerce Clause
regulated an economic “activity,” as opposed to the “inactivity” they have demonstrated by
merely existing and not purchasing health care insurance. The Supreme Court has always
required an economic or commercial component in order to uphold an act under the
Commerce Clause. The Court has never needed to address the activity/inactivity
distinction advanced by plaintiffs because in every Commerce Clause case presented thus
far, there has been some sort of activity. (p.15)

 
To get around this the judge engages in what he himself calls “mental gymnastics”, and more fraudulent divination of Congressional intent.
 
Now we get to the core of obscenity:
 

The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her
health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the
opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market
pay for medical expenses – through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket
with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties. This phenomenon of costshifting
is what makes the health care market unique.
(p. 16)

 
Think about that sentence, the two allegedly equivalent and interlinked propositions:
 
“No one can guarantee health..”  That’s self-evident.
 
“…or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market.”
 
What?! We could ensure we don’t have to participate in a criminal market by getting rid of it. We could, for example, institute Single Payer, which would cost far less, provide far more care far more efficiently, and would even solve that individual free rider issue guys like the judge have such a fetish about. It would not be a moral affront to the people, as it would eradicate the free riding parasite rackets. We’d be free of their depredations and extortions.
 
But the decision depicts this “market” as a law of the universe. It would be hard to imagine a more grotesque example of begging the question. I don’t know if the conservative plaintiffs themselves care, but in the case of we who reject the Mandate on citizenship grounds, we reject any constitutional basis for the entire system based on private health “insurance”. We didn’t try to sue over it before (and of course we would have lacked “standing”), so long as we had the option of non-participation.
 
But now we’re going to have to sue against this Mandate. But when we declare* the Mandate unconstitutional, we’re saying that’s the most aggressive unconstitutional manifestation of an extra-constitutional, outlaw system.
 
[* And we as citizens do declare it so. We do not beg a court to do so for us. We demand that if the courts really do serve the people, they'll ratify what we the people already know and declare.
 
Since the prospect that these suits will do the trick is dubious, we need to start preparing for citizen disobedience and resistance.]
 
So the judge’s rationale is non-responsive. Especially as he moves on to a series of flippant absurdities.
 

As inseparable and integral members of the health care services market, plaintiffs have made a choice regarding the method of payment for the services they expect to receive. The government makes the apropos analogy of paying by credit card rather than by check.
(p. 17)

 
We are NOT “members of this market”. This market is an alien assault being artificially inflicted upon us. The “market” has absolutely nothing to do with health care. The two are completely separable and separated. Paying by “..credit card or check…” – when of course the real issue centers on the fact that it’s a mugger demanding this payment in the first place.
 

Similarly, plaintiffs in this case are participants in the
health care services market. They are not outside the market. While plaintiffs describe the
Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization
of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.

 
We are NOT “participants”. We ARE “outside the market”. We are disenfranchised, coercively indentured subjects of this “market”. Victims.
 
What level of depravity does it take for someone to not only ignore the one fact of the case, but to turn around and accuse the victim of that very crime? What can decent people do with a criminal like that?
 
Now he comes to his decision, and his defining lie:
 

The Act regulates a broader interstate market in health care services. This is not
a market created by Congress, it is one created by the fundamental need for health care
and the necessity of paying for such services received. The provision at issue addresses
cost-shifting in those markets and operates as an essential part of a comprehensive
regulatory scheme. The uninsured, like plaintiffs, benefit from the “guaranteed issue”
provision in the Act, which enables them to become insured even when they are already
sick. This benefit makes imposing the minimum coverage provision appropriate. (p. 18)

 
This is incontrovertibly a market created by Congress. On its face that’s a clear fact. The bill’s very purpose is to bail out the rackets who, even though they have an anti-trust exemption (another creation of Congress), and can therefore quash innovation and competition, are increasingly unable to compete with non-participation, which more and more Americans are rationally choosing, as is their constitutional right as citizens. The purpose of this bill is to eliminate this competition as well. The purpose of this decision is to eliminate our constitutional rights.
 
And once again, what we must always remember immediately, every time we hear anyone like this judge say a word about “shifting costs”, “third parties”, free riding, or any other “deadbeat” language, is the obscene fact that this “market” exists at all for one reason only. It’s to enable the parasitic extortions and extractions of this insurance racket which is indeed a third party to us all, which does nothing but shift costs to us all, free ride upon us all. That’s the one and only reason the bill exists at all. That’s the one and only reason this decision was made the way it was.
 
Every word of it is a crime against the Constitution, just like the bill itself. We are under the thumb of stateless, lawless, non-sovereign predators. This Mandate is a major step forward for their criminal regime. As this incident makes clear, we cannot rely on the courts to help us uphold our constitution. We must do that ourselves.

13 Comments

  1. [...] rnRead the full article on original source: Kangaroo Court in Action: The Health Racket Mandate « Volatilityrn [...]

    Pingback by Kangaroo Court in Action: The Health Racket Mandate « Volatility | Health & Wellness — October 10, 2010 @ 8:04 am

  2. I have this theory.. I haven’t read all the way through your piece yet, but on the NATURE of corporations.
    In true.. Judaic fashion, I am somebody who feels that CONFUSION is really not good for our society. And.. confusing.. corporations with flesh and blood INDIVIDUALS is ONE HELL OF A BIG CONFUSION.
    Too many confusions of this nature take your society down. Because… if.. a corporation IS A PERSON.. then… WHAT THE HELL IS A PERSON ??
    This is the essence of insanity.
    This kind of insanity is what is at work in Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” by the way.
    And you know how “Macbeth” plays out, right ??

    Comment by Debra — October 10, 2010 @ 1:55 pm

    • According to corporatism, only corporations and proprietors are true persons. (And in practice, only big corporations and property-holders.)

      Flesh and blood human beings, on the other hand, while perhaps nominally “citizens”, are really just another natural resource to be mined.

      Only “stakeholders”, i.e. corporate citizens, have rights. They have no responsibilities.

      Human “citizens” really have no rights, except insofar as they acquire property. (The system, as part of its pseudo-democratic scam, may allow the simulacrum of various other “rights” to the extent these don’t significantly interfere with capital extraction and accumulation.) They are considered to have, in principle, infinite responsibilities. This racket mandate decision is a good example.

      This is the essence of neoliberal ideology. All else is fraudulent embellishment. Obama is perhaps a pure adherent of this ideology, unadulterated by any other psychological trait. Even Bush had his childish waywardness now and then, which resulted in things like the rescinded Miers nomination. But Obama shows zero sign of having any content at all beyond being a corporatist robot. He’s like the synthetic product of neoliberal ideology.

      Offhand I’m not sure what the Macbeth application is, but your mention of Merchant of Venice got me thinking how I’d like to apply Portia’s rigor to every last one of these criminals, making each and every one of them measure up to everything he’s ever claimed in his ideology, to absolute literal perfection. For example, we’d just make sure this judge has never free-ridden one solitary crumb’s worth in his life, has never shifted one cent of cost. I feel it would be unfair to his dignity as an ideologue to do any less.

      How fun that would be!

      Comment by Russ — October 10, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

      • Russ, its been a while since I have parsed any of the specific bullshit like you have done so well here, but one of the things that keeps jumping off of the page for me as I read the work of others who do so, is how brazen these scum bags have suddenly become, and how their sophomoric rationales have become ever more, in your face, childish.

        And … judges are the servers of the rich in the burden shifting cafe of hijacked government … they get a good crumb supply and they eat well …

        Kudos and thanks!

        Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.

        Comment by i on the ball patriot — October 11, 2010 @ 7:46 am

      • You’re welcome, i ball.

        I figured I might as well get familiar with this rationale since it’ll probably be the basic argument going forward. It’s hard to see how a court justifies decisions like this except by following through “judicially” on the political lies Obama standardized.

        Comment by Russ — October 11, 2010 @ 9:16 am

      • You’re talking about a world without grace.
        There is no life in a world without grace.
        It’s just. one fish swallows another fish that swallows another fish, etc etc UNTIL
        There is just ONE BIG FISH left.
        With nothing left to eat.
        That’s my totalitarian, graceless metaphor for the day.
        That is NOT the world i want to live in.
        That’s why I say.. I would rather go down with the ship than live in THAT world.
        Before Portia gives Shylock “his bond, and the law and NOTHING BUT THE LAW” (without grace, of course…) she gives a big speech beseeching him to bestow MERCY on Antonio.
        And even when she gives him.. THE LAW and NOTHING BUT THE LAW, she arranges for his life to be spared.
        Gotta keep the play.. IN CONTEXT, and be wary of literalist (!!!) readings of it.

        Comment by Debra — October 11, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

  3. Based on a quick run through the opinion and a review of the judge’s bio (http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/judges/guidelines/topic.cfm?topic_id=240), I think the guy is actually a traditional liberal Democrat and not a “law and economics” corporatist. I will take the time to track down his prior opinions and see if there’s any evidence to support my theory.

    For me the tell is that the judge conflates the health care market with the health insurance market. This is because the law was sold as health care reform and not health insurance reform. A law and economics corporatist type would not have made that kind of mistake (unless he were playing a dumb liberal).

    I also think the plaintiffs’ lawyers suck. They should not have agreed to allow the preliminary junction hearing to be a hearing on the merits of the Commerce Clause argument under FRCP 65(a)(2). That mis-step resulted in dismissal of the Commerce Clause claim with prejudice, and it seems pretty clear to me that they could have easily developed new and better arguments to address the judge’s lack of understanding of health insurance markets (there is really one in each state).

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule65.htm

    Comment by Tao Jonesing — October 10, 2010 @ 9:41 pm

    • Thanks, Tao. I didn’t understand why they agreed to have everything decided at once. It seems foolish. No matter how confident I was of the merits of my case, I’d still expect the lower-level judge to be hesitant to do anything to strike down the big system initiative. I’d expect him to do whatever he could to kick it upward. So I think I’d hedge my bets.

      Your explanation – incompetence – sounds like the most plausible.

      Your distinction is good, probably more clear than mine was. In a sense the health care market does have to exist, and we are all necessarily participants in it.

      But the health insurance “market” doesn’t have to exist at all. It’s a completely gratuitous creation of the government, and in this case specifically a “market created by Congress”. (Do you think a judge like this even comprehends that the health insurance market doesn’t have to exist at all, and is indeed the least productive, least efficient way of arranging things? Or is he likely a conscious criminal?)

      That’s quite a bizarre jurisprudence: The government can arbitrarily create an irrational, inequitable market and declare by fiat that everyone has to participate, and all of that is above the Constitution’s purview.

      Instead the Constitution is simply instrumental in enforcing the arbitrary markets created by government, and from that perspective a mandate to participate is valid.

      Comment by Russ — October 11, 2010 @ 6:20 am

      • This is another ENORMOUS confusion : health CARE and health INSURANCE.
        Insurance is a BIG RACKET.
        It destroys solidarity. Dixit anarchist me.

        Comment by Debra — October 11, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

  4. [...] [...]

    Pingback by Transparency, Wikileaks, and Odious Secrecy « Volatility — October 24, 2010 @ 7:26 am

  5. [...] on behalf of Big Dairy. (But see also the commerce clause issue, with Obama’s Stamp Mandate seeking to break new “constitutional” ground. This too is highly relevant for food, as I explain in those posts.)   A lawsuit by the [...]

    Pingback by Property and Raw Milk « Volatility — October 1, 2011 @ 6:41 am

  6. [...] to buy worthless insurance policies. There have been conflicting decisions in the lower courts, but those who found for the rackets did so on the basis that the commerce clause power extends not just to activity withheld from the [...]

    Pingback by Food Sovereignty, Raw Milk, and the Commerce Clause « Volatility — February 9, 2012 @ 7:21 am

  7. [...] thanks to totalitarian commerce clause jurisprudence. I’ve extensively covered this here, here, and here. (For the health racket bailout and Stamp mandate in general, see my [...]

    Pingback by The Health Racket Mandate, Toward Other Corporate Mandates « Volatility — March 28, 2012 @ 4:44 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

The Silver is the New Black Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 248 other followers

%d bloggers like this: