Saturday, October 29, 2011

To Err is Human, to Forgive is Divine: Neither is the policy of Extremism in Politics!

Keywords or Terms: Right winger; Phil Kerpen; House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan (WI); President Obama; Job’s Plan; House Republicans; Housing refinance; Student loans refinance; Relief for the masses; EPA; recalcitrance Culture in Congress; Warren Buffet; and, We can't Wait!

You have read or heard a variation of the title of the blog tonight somewhere. Why are you reading this here?  Well, the reasons are two-folds: 1) Among some criticisms that you have heard of Mr. Obama's Presidency, nothing is as disheartening as the ones offered by extreme groups in our society, especially some of them that fault Obama's Administration for all the economic and war mess that the nation has found itself; 2) An Except by Phil Kerpen, "The Congress Optional President" and "Obama's Rule By Executive Fiat Mocks the Constitution", which appeared in Washington Post of October 25, 2011, lambasting Obama for being anti or over the constitution in his executive actions. Both reasons open up a cause for picking into the minds of extreme groups in modern American politics.

Before going ahead, I need to make an upfront disclaimer; I am an avid supporter of Obama's Presidency and am a foreign policy convict of his, who admires his foreign policies' successes like a child who has just been fed Halloween Candy. At the same time, I am a realist regarding Obama's administration shortcoming with respect to his handling of the economy; but hardly at the strength at which Mr. Kerpen has been. For this and other reasons, I believe it is essential that I debate Mr. Kerpen's assessments of Obama's efforts in governance. As I link Mr. Kerpen's assessment with groups that the nation must pay attention to, not because they contribute much to the debate on democracy as they will like to believe; but because of the havoc their selfish holier than thou attitude is doing to this democracy.

Here are some excerpts from Mr. Kerpen's publication that I am taking issues with, a more comprehensive documentation can be found at the link: :
 “On Oct. 11, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had taken extraordinary measures to stall an embarrassing vote as long as possible, the Senate decisively rejected President Obama’s “jobs” plan. The same day, in Pittsburgh, Mr. Obama explained to his union allies that he would move forward regardless. “We’re not gonna wait for Congress,” Mr. Obama explained. “We can act administratively without additional congressional authorization and just get it done.” Now we know that part of what he meant was yet another mortgage bailout – one that will cost bond investors billions – via subsidized refinancing.

This remarkable disregard for the rule of law and proper constitutional procedures fit a familiar pattern in this administration: What it cannot achieve legislatively it will attempt to do by regulatory fiat. Congress must actively assert its legislative prerogative or be relegated to the sidelines.

One year ago, the American people decisively rejected Mr. Obama’s big-government agenda in a landslide election. Surely, most voters thought that election would at least halt, if not reverse, the country’s profound lurch toward a larger, more intrusive and more expensive federal government.
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has chosen to moderate his rhetoric only somewhat and his actual policies not at all. And Congress, institutionally weakened by decades of delegating legislative power, capped by two massive new grants of regulatory power to the executive branch in Mr. Obama’s health care and financial regulation bills, has thus far proven unwilling – at least on the Senate side – to stand up to him.

Consider that the day after last year’s election, Mr. Obama explained to the press corps that his signature cap-and-trade energy rationing legislation – which cost dozens of House Democrats their seats in Congress and was decisively rejected by the American people – was “one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means, not an end.” He clearly instructed his Environmental Protection Agency to go ahead and act as if the cap-and-trade law had been passed, even writing its emissions abatement schedule into the EPA budget.”


“Even that symbol of Bush-era executive power – the signing statement – has reached a new level of abuse under Mr. Obama. In April, Mr. Obama and House Republican leadership concluded tense negotiations on a funding bill to avert a government shutdown. Part of the deal the president specifically agreed to was language blocking funding for four of the president’s policy advisers – czars, colloquially. Mr. Obama agreed to the language but after the bill’s passage, he used a signing statement to explain that he would simply disregard it. [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!].

Now our Congress-optional president is moving forward on his latest bailout-and-stimulus scheme without congressional authorization. Enough is enough. Congress must assert its responsibility under Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It is Congress, not the president that is vested by the people with legislative power. The Senate must do what the House has repeatedly done and stand up to this administration – or voters must elect a Senate that will.”

To appreciate my discussion of Phil Kerpen's take on President Obama's Administration, it is important to know what stock Mr. Kerpen is made of; and or, where he is coming from with respect to his criticism of Obama’s Administration. Mr. Kerpen is affiliated with the right wing think tank, Americans for Prosperity. Credit for his publication announces him as a Vice President of the think-tank group. He recently published what any objective observer will consider a hatchet job on Obama's Administration, with the title: “Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America – and How to Stop Him”. Like Congressman Paul Ryan, who has chosen to criticize the President of United States for starting a class war by asking, just like Warren Buffet suggested, that the rich pay more of their fair share in taxes, Mr. Kerpen shows a lot of disdain for the welfare of the working class? What makes sense for majority of Americans hardly make sense for Phil Kerpen, like the House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan (WI), since they both share the same maitre: my way or the highway!

Mr. Kerpen criticizes President Obama for by-passing congress, by using executive administrative power in bringing about reprieve for millions of Americans who have their homes under water. What Kerpen fails to appreciate simply is this: without any improvement in the housing market, there is very little change that will take place in the economy and unemployment will continue to remain exasperatingly stubborn! For Mr. Kerpen’s information, when a leader is unable to get the led to buy-in into his proposal, like in the job’s plan bill, the leader takes the initiative to become a catalyst for the change process. Obama wants to bring about change, because of the poor culture of recalcitrance in congress. What is the beef about subsidizing home owners’ mortgage refinance? Is it alright to bail out the banks, finance houses and the insurance companies, but not the masses of Americans with their homes under water? Mr. Kerpen is obviously doing the bidding for the rich and far right; and, this is why his argument here falls shallow or should hardly be taken seriously.

In the opinion of Mr. Kerpen, there is a pattern of disregard for the rule of law and proper constitutional procedures in Obama’s Administration. Unfortunately, he has hardly backed up his assertion, considering that Mr. Kerpen’s assessment is based on a series of innuendoes and not facts. Current Congressional session should long have been relegated to oblivion as it has abdicated its obligation to enact bills that address the welfare of the majority of voters who brought them into office. The complexities that President Obama has faced in effort to pass laws addressing important issues facing majority of Americans have not only been daunting; they have made him resolve to creative means in addressing his administration wishes to make impact on their welfare. Providing a forum of debate for the lackadaisical attitude found in congress, especially among Republicans to scuttle any effort by the Obama’s Administration, is in order; and the President consistent message that If congress won’t act, he will, is not only relevant, it is probably one effort essential to help veterans find jobs and struggling homeowners, begin anew.

In an age of 617 lobbying and influence groups working to undermine the Congressional Super committee’s effort to resolve fiscal issues in our budget, who can blame Obama’s Administration for tuning down its rhetoric regarding effort made to jump start the economy, since congress has failed to act. We have an army of right wing interest groups working hard to undermine the interest of over 90% of Americans, yet Mr. Kerpen expects the President to look away in effecting executive power. Early in President Obama’s Administration, it was more important for the President to extend olive leaf to Republicans in congress to achieve the goal of passing bills. Attempting to find other means for persuading lawmakers to do the right thing for the sake of the people is a sign of leadership in governance. To build commitment among the Americans for an agenda to change the direction of the economy, when congress is so much interested in lobbying groups to do their jobs, is not only important, it is probably the only remaining way to move this country ahead. To criticize the President for showing leadership in the face of adversity is a sign of disloyalty, if not treason.

Mr. Obama came into office when the recession was taking hold of the economy; and, his decisiveness to respond to the turmoil that nearly dragged the auto industry into malaise is not only a master craft in leadership, it is probably one of the acclaimed effort of this administration that has saved the economy from going into another or double dip recession. Just as his cap-and-trade energy legislation has caught the dire of Mr. Kerpen, there are millions of Americans who are very concerned about climate change and the greenhouse effect of carbon-based fuel use expansion that continue to pollute our environment and destabilize the climate regime and ozone layer. The inspiring vision of articulating that there are more than one way to skin a cat, may be offensive and unacceptable for Mr. Kerpen; however, for many Americans who love this country, it is vey compelling. The change anticipated to preserve the environment may not have been achieved due to the failure to pass the cap-and-trade law in congress; however, it does not say that an effort to bring about this law was not relevant and essential, if we are to leave a better climate and environment for succeeding generations of Americans. President Obama’s leadership has been insightful and the resistance to his effort from Congressional Republicans and the far right can only be seen as shameful and uncalled for, if the effort is to bring about needed change in the welfare of Americans.

Communication is an important aspect of leadership. Suspecting the intention and communication aspect of a negotiated plan, hardly seem an effort to rescind negotiated agreements or disregard some aspects of the constitution. If Mr. Kerpen reiterate that Mr. Obama’s negotiations with House Republicans were tense, how are we sure that both parties were on the same page regarding denial of funds for the presidential policy advisers? How would the President agree to undermine his advisers when he actually needs those advisors to make reliable and effective public policy?  Agreeing to cut funds to his advisers will be out of character for President Obama, considering and knowing his leadership style since taking office; and, how much his advisers mean to his success. Mr. Kerpen is not in position to know all the communications and negotiations that went on with the President and House Republicans, except he was present at every of their meeting; a claim that seem unlikely. To arrogate to himself the know all and end all stance, regarding a language in a bill agreed to by President Obama actually leaves much to demand. President Obama has not undermined or undercut the democratic process; rather, he has made all efforts to work within the system. Congress passes bills into law and the President signs it. The President is not obligated to negotiate provisions in a law; although he can veto parts of the provisions in a law or the totality of the law. To turn around to say the President renege on a negotiated promise in a bill about to be passed in congress, is despicable and unwarranted.

In an era of winding social and income inequality, critics expect President Obama to refuse to exercise the little option available to the executive branch to make a difference in the lives of Americans. Mr. Kerpen, being one of such critics, does not see the essence of the President moving on the bail out and stimulus scheme without congressional approval. This is rather sad, considering what has been going on in congress since Obama took office. Mr. Kerpen is probably in the group of Republicans who want Obama to be a one term President. The two laudable actions taken by Obama, the mortgage refinance opportunity for home owners about to lose their home and those who are already under water, and the student loan relief and refinance advancement, are criticized as an overstepping of the Presidential power by the executive branch. This is probably one reason for the venom from Mr. Kerpen that: “Congress must assert its responsibility under Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It is Congress, not the president that is vested by the people with legislative power. The Senate must do what the House has repeatedly done and stand up to this administration – or voters must elect a Senate that will”. What else does this wing nut expect, when the average undergraduate debt after graduation is hovering around twenty-five thousand dollars for in-state tuition?

There are probably two ways to address the winding wealth and income inequality among Americans: 1) Meritocracy, where every man is for himself and God for us all or, you either swim or you sink doctrine; 2) Income or wealth redistribution, through taxation or public policies that address the winding gap in income between the haves and have-nots. Neither of these two options is perfect; however, to ignore both in light of the current challenges to Obama’s Administration from congress must be considered a dereliction of duties on the part of the President. The fact that the President has taken the change initiatives, doing all he could through executive fiat and calling on the rich to do more to help the nation get over the current hump, is very laudable and appreciated by many who are perceiving this country as going down the tube due to the recalcitrance of House Republicans and some US Republican Senators. What Obama has done recently increases the probability that some of the headaches in the economy can be addressed; and, his effort to do all in his power to bring about change in the welfare of Americans, further opens up conversations regarding the social and income inequality gap in America.

The Occupy-the-Wall-Street Groups are saying so much by their commitment to shine lights on those issues that are making lives unbearable for millions of Americans, including students with huge college loan problems. It is true that a robust change cannot be effected in some of the programs that the President has initiated through executive power to bring about relief in the sufferings of the 99% that is crying for help in the face of congressional Republican tyranny. The biggest error in Mr. Kerpen’s assessment of President Obama’s leadership as seen in the above excerpts is that, he continues to overlook the dire circumstance that millions of American households are forced to live; many people have lost their jobs and their homes and there is virtually nowhere to turn. It is important that their President take initiatives to forestall further sufferings and the going under of many more Americans, due to the failure of Wall Street and the effrontery of the right wing, to demand: my way or the highway! Mr. Kerpen may be tough minded or just mischievous; however, his current assessment of Obama’s leadership is completely in error and totally uncalled for. The truth of the matter is, President Obama is playing the political game based on the cards dealt to him by the House Republicans and extreme right wing thinkers like Mr. Kerpen. To repeat the White House catchphrase of the day, "We can't wait!" We can’t wait for right wingers like Mr. Kerpen to hold their breath as the nation attempts to find its way out of this puzzle!! We can't wait for naysayers to hold water in their mouth before it freezes over!!! Need I say more?

Friday, October 28, 2011

Social and Income Inequality: Does Occupy the Wall Street Group(s) stand a chance?

The rise of the Occupy the Wall Street Group(s) undoubtedly direct attention at one of the greatest irony in modern day America- we live in an era of untold and unimaginable social and income inequality, while at the same time, we have rallied to intervene and help those countries across the globe that we consider less fortunate than us. The greatest economic expansion of the past half a century and the transformation of America that is so admired by millions across the globe, have been at the back of the poor and middle class Americans. But exactly, how did we get to this crux, a junction in our Democracy, where the top 1% in the population has experienced expansion of after tax income and wealth to the tune of two hundred and seventy percent of the bottom 99%? How did we become the greatest super power, while the majority of our population continues to wallow in declining personal income? How did we allow the wealth of the top one percent of Americans to be out of whack with the remaining 99% in our Democracy?

Some observers believe that except for two or three administrations, Johnson, Carter and Clinton, the past Presidential Administrations, have mostly looked out for the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes. The spotted upward mobility touted for the middle-income groups were actually ephemeral. The income and capital creation terrain were mostly skewed towards the affluent and the rich members of American society. A few spotted upward mobility among the middle class were propelled by public policies, without which, many Americans would have remained dirt poor. Some wealth creation and capital accumulation came out of the bulwark of inheritance that a few Americans have been privileged to. As the poor got poorer, the rich got powerful and bought political power through campaign contributions; and, where they remained outside political offices, many of them retained lobby groups that bid their interest in the halls of congress. 

The unfortunate aspect of the American Democracy is that: the rich used their capital to situate politicians into offices to serve their personal interest; and where they are able, actually write parts, if not most of the laws that are passed in congress in their private office, labeled think tanks! The result of this unfortunate arrangement is what has now walked itself into the political lexicon or reality of American life as documented for the last decade by Professor Vernellia R. Randall of University of Dayton Law school: 1) the gap between the rich and poor in the United States grew at the same pace as the economic growth. Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the US citizens own 40 percent of the total property of the country, while 80 percent of US citizens own just 16 percent; 2) from 1977 to 1999, the after-tax income of the richest 20 percent of American families increased by 43 percent, while that of the poorest 20 percent decreased 9 percent, allowing for inflation. The actual income of those living on the lowest salaries was even less than 30 years ago; 3) a great number of Americans suffer from poverty and hunger. According to the statistics of the US government, over 32 million citizens, or 12.7 percent of the total population of the country, live under the poverty line. The incidence of poverty is higher than in the 1970s, and higher than in most other industrialized countries. U.S. Census.

Current statistical data, released by Census Bureau from its 2010 American Community Survey of 516 metropolitan and micropolitan areas, indicate widest ever income gap between American households since the tracking of data on household income through community surveys. The Rich hold down to wealth about 275 times than the poor. Today, when residents of metropolitan and micropolitan areas are divided into five groups of equal size, known as quintiles, based on their income levels, data shows that the least quintile of about 20% of the population earned least while the uppermost quintile, earned most since the recession. In less technical terms or jargon, according to the Congressional Budget office, a nonpartisan budget and tax analysis arm of the United States Congress: “For the 1 percent of the population with the highest income, average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007. Among metropolis with a population of one million, the widest gap between the rich and the poor are found in Los-Angeles, Miami-Fort Lauderdale and New York City, with increments from city to city. At the opposite end of the scale are the major markets with the lowest inequality scores: Virginia Beach, Salt Lake City and Washington.

Here we are in 2011, fighting an economic recession that is about to subsume any progress that the nation has made in half a century, an a few privileged millionaires are asking us to buck up, while more responsive and realistic rich folks like Warren Buffet are asking that the rich be taxed more. With the current ambivalence regarding what the Occupy the Wall Street groups want, will it be safe to say, that that is just belaying the point as the level of poverty among Americans has expanded exponentially. Although not with all certainty, the protected challenge of the current recession will likely expand the number of people that are likely to fall further into poverty. There are massive number of unemployed newly graduated college students and another thirteen to fourteen millions of the outstanding unemployed and underemployed. How unearth can a government continue to look elsewhere without doing something drastic or radical to change the faith of the people?

During the early times in this recession, December 2007, the outgoing Republican Administration attempted to rally around and developed bill(s) designed to save the banks and insurance companies from going under; because according to the Bush Administration, these financial institutions are too big to fail. The lesson from that experience is that the rich and their corporations are sacred cows; and, if nothing is done on time their situation may turn for the worse, a situation that the Republican Party finds unacceptable. In like manner, if public policies are not quickly fashioned and implemented, many more Americans will fall into poverty and some may actually commit suicide. Now, to say financial institutions are too big to fail, could very much be likened to, the nation cannot afford to have more Americans to fall through the cracks; failure to do anything  positive to alleviate the suffering of the underclass would be tantamount to negligence. Unfortunately, just as President Obama has striven to ensure that bills are passed to address the welfare of the poor and middle classes, Republicans continue to be the stumbling block. Sadly, the most recent bill on jobs creation has now turned to become several piece mill proposals barely walking its way through congress. To compound the problem, Republican leaders in congress are boasting that they will continue to stand up to President Obama's choice to help alleviate the suffering of millions of Americans. To Republicans, the issue of class war cannot be entertained; however, it was okay to bailout the banks, insurance and financial sectors, but not the working class.

Except there is responsive tax policies similar to those advanced by President Obama to help fill the gap in zillions of budget line items cut from the Federal and State budgets, the underclass in the nation is probably toast; the Occupy the Wall Street Group(s) may find themselves sleeping in the cold until kingdom come, as Republicans characterize their concerns as being anti-capitalism, a far cry from the truth; and, the cold play of the current recessional problems can only but escalate. There is an urgent need for a roll back on the privileges and tax cuts given to the wealthy in America, to deny this reality is to begin to play with the devil; hoping that all denunciation by the impacted groups will just go away. There is the need for the extension of the expanded child tax credit and home ownership tax credit to help many in the middle and poor classes remain in their homes. There is need for a new paradigm as to how to deal with the increasing disparity in income between the haves and have-nots. To deny these assertions is to be cruel to essence of a fair and judicious equity in our Democracy.
  Without these brakes and other public policies to fight the mysterious recession that began in 207, there is hardly anything that many people can expect from this dire economic time.
One challenge for the Obama’s administration is: how to defend its current executive power in helping bring some succor to American lives without congress. The home-owner’s mortgage refinance and student loans refinance and relief could help but some aspects of these initiatives may actually need congressional approval to actually float. It is okay for the President to do all that is in his executive power to change the tide of times on the mortgage and foreclosure issues; however with the student loans refinance and relief, there may actually be the need for congressional support.
President Obama has attempted to use executive power to accomplish some changes and address issues of immediate suffering among disadvantaged Americans. The President’s executive power may have been exhausted regarding the mortgage refinance, student loans' combinations/ refinance and possible reliefs in both areas; however, no one can tell if the wave of congressional attacks will not undo some of the reliefs the President has attempted to accomplishing through executive powers. At the same time, congress may find itself at the receiving end during the coming election, as many pressure groups are realizing they could actually exert their voting rights and priority in choosing new candidates into congress that will address their concerns. The current advertisements from the AARP indicate that exercising political power through block votes are alive and could really take a life of its own come next year's election. The same can be true of the poor and middle classes, as long as they all are in agreement to bring an end to the tyranny of the few, who are basically fighting in the interest of the rich and wealthy.

The elderly have indicated they will fight for the Social Security Payments preservation as well as their Medicare; if any politician doubts their fifteen million strong memberships as advertised by the AARP, let him or her do so at their peril. The same can be said of the teaming group(s) of Occupy the Wall Street, found across the nation: if these groups find themselves caged in, with the policing inadequacies that are recently reported, this somewhat lukewarm stand against the oppression of the privileged few and the wanton disregard of their plight in congress and mainstream media, may end up becoming the hugest fire that guts the political prairie in America. To paraphrase Robert Lucas, the potential for improving the lives of poor people by finding different ways of distributing current production is nothing compared to the apparent disaster and damage to the psyche of Americans as many of them fall through the cracks due to the unyielding unemployment problems and the rising foreclosure crisis. The wind of change is out there, but no one can tell yet, where it is going to blow and whom may be swept away from political offices come November 2012!

Saturday, October 15, 2011

PPACA: Long-Term Insurance for the Disabled and Accident Victims Dropped After Nineteen Months!

Keyword or Terms: PPACA; Class Act; Long-Terms Health Insurance; Cutting Costs; Quality of Care; Early or Midstream Change; Kathleen Sebelius; Edward Kennedy; Government Subsidy; Insurance Premiums; U.S. Department of Health; Inflation; Federal Reserve Bank Chief; Bureau of Economic Statistics; What; Where; When; Why; and How.

The uncertainty in the number of injured or disable persons signing up for insurance and or, the potential huge costs involved in providing long-term care insurance for the disabled are calling to question the viability of a portion of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act. In the face of projected rising costs of support for Community Living Assistance Services and Support (Class) Program, under the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act, U.S. Secretary of Health, Katheleen Sebelius, pronounces a dead future for the provision. The resulting impact of reforming health insurance rather than health care has been blamed as one of the reasons for this backtracking by the federal government. The blog explores seven cogent questions that are uppermost on the mind of skeptics regarding the choice to drop long-term health insurance provision from the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act.

An aspect of the health care reform law that was designed to help disabled citizens during times of illness and accidents while employed; and one that was billed as a self-sustaining program within the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act is being projected as unsustainable; and thus, must be scrapped. Some health insurance providers have struggled with pricing premiums at affordable rate for long term health insurance consumers. The additional cost for covering many disabled consumers out of the fear that many of these people may not sign up, seems to have scuttled this initiative in the health care reform law. The uniqueness of this new challenge regarding how to fix the health care system and or, provide long-term health insurance for those who really need it but may not all necessarily sign-up in critical mass, is making me ask the following questions:

1) In light of the reported growing cost of coverage for long term care, what specific areas of the long term health insurance program, or the Senator Edward Kennedy shepherd Class Act, is adding to the costs of the program? As mush as the Department of Health is ready to junk the long-term health insurance provision in the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act, how much has the US Department of Health done to investigate the underwriting costs if any when the program is mainstream? How much effort has been devoted to ascertaining the potential increasing cost of premiums; and or, costs to government if enough potential beneficiaries fail to sign up. Not every long-term care is prohibitive; and some aspects of long-term care that are known to carry huge costs are probably not investigated for possible fraud-threshold or cost containment, since the introduction of this provision. Further, a fear of factors that may undermine the success of a program is not necessarily the ultimate outcome determinant for the program, as other variables may have been exempted at this time, in assessing the viability of this aspect of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act. The fact that there is a possible lag in the number of participants in a supposedly self-sustaining health care program, hardly justifies its complete scrapping.

Projecting that the revenue base of the Class Act may not allow the program to stand alone within PPACA is too presumptuous at this time. The groups that are being penalized by the withdrawal of the long-term care insurance provision want costs to be manageable to themselves and the government program; none of the patients in this group subscribes to exorbitant costs and are hardly in collusion with health care providers. The Logical question is: how do we ensure that those that are truly in need of long-term care are not being jettisoned for potential rising costs or premiums alone; and if they are, are the associated reasons for failure to reach critical mass sufficient enough to convince an objective observer, that they are completely relevant? U.S. Department of Health must endeavor to identify those factors that have contributed to the rising premiums and cost of underwriting long-term care and provide alternative solutions to them rather that scrapping this provision in the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act.

2) What are the major ailments needing long-term care, how may people have fallen victim of this health impairments or accidental injury in the past nineteen months; and, how has insurance companies underwritten and or managed the costs of coverage for these ailments? Knowing the specific number of patients in the categories of impaired and disabled persons; and, identifying cost coverage for both groups are pivotal in assessing and addressing the contributory rising cost of care and insurance premiums. There are several factors that drive health care, including administrative costs and inflation; and, if inflation in the past nineteen months has been tame as provided by the Bureau of Economic Statistics and the Federal Reserve Bank Chief, where has the rising costs emanating and what essentially are the parameters that we are looking at, to arrive at the decision to quit the Class Act provision just after a year and a half. If the effective costs of inflation are absent from the rising cost of care and premiums, what then are the factors that have made provision of long-term insurance coverage prohibitive or one that may lead many not to sign up?.

Occasionally, the United States Department of Health, like many government agencies, finds it challenging to adjust and adapt quickly to factors that may be adding to the costs of running a program. The same can be said of insurance companies’ ability to manage variable factors that keep them from charging increasing premiums in underwriting long-term health care insurance. Early or Midstream change in implementation of a law are sometimes unsupported by hard data on the ground; and all that may be needed in the case of implementing the Class Act, is a follow-through on factors that may be impeding the effort of providing long-term care. This new backtrack lacks clarity of purpose and adds to the ambiguity of understanding why the US Department of Health has been unable to make a success of this provision; or, are quickly making a three hundred and sixty degree turn on a provision that has been determined to be essential in helping patients with long term care needs.

3) How would unsubscribing to long-term health insurance needs of patients address the health care needs of many Americans in this cohort? Sometimes, even the role of the health insurance companies that are supposed to be players in this market, are suspect, considering that they have often felt that they deserve more from government  programs or bearing the costs of underwriting long-term health care insurance. If the contemplated challenge is that of rising cost of subsidizing long-term insurance cost for the disabled or impaired from accidents, what alternative strategies have been adopted to address these concerns? When patients in need of long-term care are struggling to cope with cost of premiums and the federal government agency expected to administer the program abdicates its responsibility under the health care reform law, who then do this group turn to? Health Care Delivery for long-term care patients suffers, when the government drops this essential aspect or provision in the law. Rumor mongering among initial opponents of the law felicitates and mistrust of the purpose and essence of the law permeates through the country with this new development.

4) What was the expected rate or volume participation in long-term care insurance by the disabled and accident victims; and how has this contributed to the increasing program cost that is making the government backtrack? Has there been an increase in long-term care patients load in hospitals; or participants in the program? It is important to know if the volume of patients seeking long-term care has increased since the implementation of the law. Has the volume frustrated the U.S. Department of Health Staff; or has it added to the issue of revenue sufficiency of the program? Are there issues raised by long-term health insurance providers that have advised the U.S. Department of Health to withdraw from implementing this provision in the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act? Increased workload for Departmental Staff may unnerve the resolve to implement this provision in the law; this in turn may encourage the decreased confidence in the ability of the U.S. Department of Health to implement this provision. Many insurance companies may elect to participate in this program or underwrite long-term health insurance policies; however, when the federal agency expected to administer the program is circumspect regarding the viability of the program, how would enough insurance companies participate to help drive down cost for consumers through competition; or, how can the insurance companies understand they can make a profit by providing these products?.

5) How much room is there for retooling the implementation of this provision in the law? It behooves the U.S. Department of Health to assess the current participation of long-term care patients and the number of health insurance companies that has joined or withdrawn from the ranks of provider since the implementation of this provision or program in the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act. In many cases, most insurance underwriters may complain to the U.S. or States’ Department of Health that they are not making money out of providing long-term insurance care and thus are about to withdraw their participation in offering a range of insurance products. Instead of addressing the concerns of these providers, the U.S. Department of Health may have elected to withdraw implementation or encouraging future participation. Demonstrated commitment to change is what is needed in implementing the provisions in the Affordable Care Act; as long as the Department of Health can maintain accountability in its implementation of the law, the fear of not reaching a critical mass for a few underwriters should not be a pivotal reason for withdrawing implementation of the long-term insurance provision.

6) Where and when is the U.S. Department of Health constrained in implementing the long-term insurance provision? How much effort has it made to keep long-term insurance providers and staff within the agency informed of the new changes and the potential difficulties that must be addressed to make the implementation of all provisions of the law a success? How much feedback, favorable and unfavorable, has the Department of Health received from patients, hospitals and insurance providers in long-term care business. There are significant implications for not addressing the scrawny issues regarding the feedback of all stakeholders in implementing this aspect of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act. Throwing your hands up and saying you give up on this provision, is no option. This is an area of health care that many treating physician and providers have complained in the past, was not been receiving needed attention. Where do patients in this category head for now? Are they expected to recalibrate back to the pre-PPACA time, when the long-term care patients were dumped or railroaded from insurance policies because of perceived exorbitant cost of long-term care? When federal government lowers overall engagement in implementation of a provision, it is unlikely that the deteriorating circumstance that necessitated the provision in the law would vamoose.

7) How does the U.S. Department of Health expect to deal with the resentment from the withdrawal in the implementation of this provision? It is essential that the federal agency understand that there were patients depending on the implementation of this provision of the law. The inability or unwillingness to implement this provision is more likely an albatross on other aspects of the law. Rather than a holistic approach in the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the choice of throwing one of the provisions in the law under the bus undermines optimism and effectiveness of other provisions in the law when phased in. Withdrawing implementation of all the provisions in the law may help cut costs or serve some industry group; however, it will not address the initial reasons for the health care reform law.

Aspects of the law were introduced to ensure that the health care system begins to deliver value for the patients. Some aspects of the law were meant to gauge the success of other provisions in the law, while others were meant to strengthen overall quality of care of the American Health Care System. For those who have criticized the Class Act as another entitlement program, it is probably wise to hold your judgment, as this will be tantamount to misplaced assessment. A few provisions in the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act were meant to focus on improvement opportunities in health care delivery. The new announcement by the U.S. Secretary of Health that the Class Act is unsustainable and thereby must be jettisoned is neither a recipe for the success of other aspects of the law nor the overall goal of improving the American Health Care system.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Social Inequality II: Why Occupy Wall Street Crowd Seems to be getting Confrontational?

Keywords or Terms: Republican Whitehouse; Democratic Whitehouse; Wall Street Bail Out; Political Stooges; Corporate Executives; Unemployment; Deficit Hulk; Job's Bill; Legislative honor; and, Getting America back to Work.

From the start of this recession - which coincided with the rise of unemployment and huge housing foreclosures, trading on Wall Street was clocking 10,000 points daily - the relationship between the Republican Whitehouse and businesses, especially the financial sector, was super cordial as one of the Wall Street men headed the United States Treasury. The Business's interest was more than protected and when the economy was about to go into a tail spin, bills were drafted with implicit blessings of the Republican Whitehouse to bail out the financial sector. The Bush Whitehouse did not encounter denials by Democrats, nor did the bills held ransom by Republicans as the Senate did to the Democrat’s Whitehouse bill to create jobs, yesterday. The vote was 50-49, with all Republicans opposing the plan to create jobs for Americans, and two Democrats who are facing probably the worst reelections bids in recent time, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana, identifing with Republicans. For many who have been keeping a watchful eye on the nation's unemployment rate, the spread of the vote on the Jobs' plan, was both socially and politically repugnant. First, the vote angers and next, it astounds many who thought the Republicans will be more circumspect, considering the unblinking unemployment rate in the past three months.

Prior to the economic melt down, bankers were smiling with the loose rules of financial industry governance and the oil industry was moving with exploration and drilling activities without restraints regarding industrial safety and environmental conservation. As the Republican Whitehouse at that time perceived it, it was their turn to bid the work of corporate America. The nation thought everything was okay as the deregulated environment afforded any type and form of deals, many of which were hurting the whole economy. With the deregulated financial sector, consumer credit was super easy and many households went on the spending spree. In that environment, no corporation was sitting down on billions of dollars as we now have and investments were a daily occurrence because there were no rules to the game. Some big, bulky and unfathomed deals came out during those times and no congressional  bills were out to regulate the excesses of financial behaviors. Today, with millions of Americans unemployed and over four million homes in foreclosure, Republicans have not seen the need to support a plan to create jobs immediately for the hurting population.

The question for Republican Senators, or any Senator for that matter, who have failed to get behind the jobs bill, is: At what cost will the nation’s unemployed get a brake from the indecisiveness of politicians or, to what extent are the lawmakers ready to make the American households endure further hardships? At what time will Republicans stop playing games with the lives of many Americans? The Republicans deregulated economic environment and reckless expenditures on two wars in the last decade led the nation to abyss, and now Republicans are un- willing to bend over to rebuild a future for millions of Americans. Republicans want to further slow down the pace of the lukewarm jobs' creation hoping to get a Republican Whitehouse next year; but the truth is: you never can tell if the voters will ever forget this let down on the jobs' bill. The gross national product will get a hit at the end of this year and would continue, as long as Americans are not producing enough to ginger economic growth. Unemployment is unlikely to decline, even with a Republican Whitehouse, because it takes a while before another jobs' bill passes under a different administration; and, all that dream of having a Republican in the Whitehouse, may just end up being a dream as long as the average American continues to believe that his or her welfare is of little concern to those lawmakers in congress.  For now, Unemployment is delivering a pain to majority of Americans that politicians will be seeking votes from next year; and, I believe, they will hardly forget!

In the after glow of the 2010 November sweep of Republicans in the House, Democrats pondered if their lukewarm attitude to the Republican obstructionism had not cost them the House. Republicans should not be surprised if a similar experience come to pass in 2012 election because of the failure to help millions to get back on their feet. Now, in case Republicans are interested, a rider to the current jobs bill, where the federal government buys over all the bad mortgages and let the home owners under siege remain in their homes, paying a restructured monthly mortgage that is within their income, will be in order. Just like the government ate up the failures of the financial sector when the economy was about to tail spin, this focus will allow the mopping up of the excess homes on the market, rekindle the building industry and create jobs for the masses. The ominous rise of the nation’s deficit from this endeavor that worries fiscal conservatives could be defended on the basis of the potential social upheaval that may deluge the country due to the protests from the Occupy the Wall Street Crowd; and closely by Keynesian economics theory.

The concerns over the reduction in deficit spending are in order. Unfortunately, worries over deficit spending during a bad recession fails to appreciate the stubborn realities of unemployment and rising poverty among Americans. Not that deficit spending is necessarily bad economics; however, when the national productivity and personal income are slipping to oblivion, radical economic measures and monetary policy are essential to shore up the whole economy. With inflation at an all time low, it is practically impossible that consumer savings are about to be eaten up; an issue that could logically be of concerns to deficit spending hulks. The challenge for now, is unemployment, if the number of people out of work spikes up again because of congressional indecisiveness, another recession that has been hoped against, is likely to materialize.  The Federal Reserve Bank is doing all it could to stabilize the market; however, congress needs to support infrastructural development spending as advanced in the jobs' bill. Any intention to fight against this proposal will only extend sufferings for the millions of unemployed.

The denials of the Democrat’s Job’s bill may burst Obama politically; however, no one is saying it is going to help Republicans either. The way the current recession has hit, it is likely that voters would throw out a whole bunch of congressional lawmakers who are currently hoping that voters would look away and punish just the party in the Whitehouse. One of the primary goal of the job's bill from the Obama's Whitehouse, is probably to revitalize the whole economy by increased federal spending in infrastructural development to create jobs for the millions of unemployed. Republicans may deny this opportunity by continuing their recalcitrance; however, the choice is still theirs to make a difference at this time. There is an opportunity for a re-vote on the job's bill in Senate. Hopefully, the dissenting senators will see the need to change their minds for the betterment of the welfare of many Americans.

In August employers held up recruitment out of fear of what is happening in the economy and congressional stalemates that have now become the order of the day in Washington DC. Businesses understand under-performance in the economy and are weary of uncertainties that may impinge their investments. This is why the uncertainties from the stalemate in congress is delaying recruitment of new workers. Home ownership among Americans have suffered a hit due to an under-performing economy. The home-ownership support promise from the Obama's administration has not turned out to prevent foreclosures. The fifty billion dollars from the TARP fund set aside to assist home owners were not administered by banks as expected. Commercial Banks continue to introduce different twists from what the government expected and there was hardly enough oversight for about eight months into the program. Commercial Banks have been hard nosed,  refusing to reduce the expected mortgage interest rates for home owners with home values under water; as they have not seen a financial interest in the government program. For example, only about 800,000 home-owners have been helped since the advent of the program. With over close to 4 million people behind in their mortgage payment today, it is rather difficult to find the quick housing recovery that is essential to an economic recovery and vice-versa. Some housing and mortgage specialists have indicated that unless this program is overhauled or the criteria for qualification for the program fine-tinued, the housing glut will continue to be a problem for the foreseeable future. This in turn will impinge on the economic recovery expectations.

It is a form of confirmed bias for Senators to ignore the importance of a change of mind to help rebuild the future of many. The tendency to latch on to political ideology may be appealing to many Republicans; however, many unemployed Americans do not find the latest ploy from these lawmakers as worthy of praise or appreciation. Many people are hurting and if the lawmakers do not believe this and are just ready to preserve themselves in their various offices, maybe it is time to re-evaluate how exactly they got into their offices and who are they obligated to at this time. Serving in political office is wanting to put the interest of the people first, before any other myopic interest, especially those of their political bank rollers. Obviously with the latest vote, one can assume that Senators who voted against the Jobs plan have other priorities in mind rather than serving  to help the unemployed.

Allowing other obligations to becloud common sense is tantamount to negligence. Allowing other inconsequential to creep into a decision to help the teaming millions of unemployed smacks of a dedication to serve; an oath taken by each lawmaker when sworn into office. It is hard to condemn the agitated or irresistible attitude of the Occupy Wall Street Crowd considering the latest development of vote over the Jobs plan as advanced by President Obama to help get many in this crowd back to work. Like I once said, there is still room for all those senators that voted against the plan to redeem their honor, by voting for this plan, so we can get American back to work!

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

STEVE JOBS (1955 – 2011): Creating a New World at Apple after a Legend?

Keywords or Terms: Obituary; Steve Jobs; Apple; Strategic Leadership; iMac; iPad; iPad2; iPod, iphone; iPhone4; Macbook air; iTune; and, more

As the dust settles over the news of the demise of one of the most influential CEOs in Silicon Valley and probably the best genius and resourceful inventor since Thomas Edison and Henry Ford, the topmost question on everyone’s mind at Apple is: how are we going to replace our charismatic and visionary leader? Steve Jobs changed the way so many of us live right now and probably led a tight shift at Apple that resulted in over 300 patents, iMac; iPad; iPad2; iPod, iPhone; iPhone4; Macbook air; iTune music store and more. Like Steve Jobs once said, death is probably the greatest invention of nature, because it ensures renewal, renewal of life and beginning anew of a future that is yet unknown, but one that is out there to be found by a persistent and creative mind. The compelling message of the man, who believes that the world made it easier for Apple to create a better technology experience for everyone, simply would be: All will be well at Apple, even after me! 

The urgency to look at who is to step into the shoes of an innovative and creative mind, especially when that individual is synonymous with the organization and products churned out from its mill, is very evident. Tim Cook, Apple’s current CEO probably will tell you that Steve’s shoes cannot be filled; but, will also like to reassure investors that he is up to the task. It is believed that executives at Apple were already preparing for this day since their boss stepped down as Apple’s CEO around a month ago because of health issues. However, nothing can really prepare them to replace the man, who has made a difference in their organization’s bottom line, impacted close to every employee’s way of life, changed the way people receive and use information technologies, impacted lives across the world and probably, set the pace for what products those unborn, would buy in the future. Steve excited so many of us that a few techies are asking: can we really clone a result oriented leader, who always came back, again and again? He made profound impact in the world of computer and information technologies that are now being translated to other consumer goods; that is what it takes to be a genius! Steve Wozniak, Apple Co-founder, was short for words when being interviewed on CNN today, said he hopes Apple would have a great leader and innovative leadership after his great and beloved friend, who made many people happy.

The inventions and products Steve Jobs brought us have made life a lot better for many. The results of his leadership and innovation are ubiquitous and made life much flexible both at home and in the business world. For his family, if this will be a consolation, the world is ever grateful for the work of your husband, father, friend, uncle and confidant. Not only did your shinning star made information sharing much fun, he showed the market and world, what greater things are possible if we only put our heart into something. Now, how does Apple transition from the operation of a man who made the right decisions that has transformed computer and information technology? The extraordinary beauty of the products he brought is undoubtedly, revolutionary. Between a lap top and a phone, the ipad, that allow us to have the best browsing experience and bring amazingly smiles to all faces with a torch, is an innovation that can be topped; however, who is going to bring that product to the market after Steve Jobs?

Traditionally, when an out-going CEO is about to exit, there is an advertisement for a replacement, there is an interview and an appointment. Vuala, you have him replaced! But in a high energy, inventive and creative environment, where the last CEO has often striven to bring to market, products yet unthought-of by consumers, products that revolutionaries lifestyles and living, products that says, only Apple and Steve Jobs could have thought of that, there comes a challenge. Executives with a combination of relentless communication and innovative leadership practically and often up the stake. That is why the death of Steve Jobs is not only a loss to Apple, it is also a loss to every members of the computer and information technology industry, who have thought of bringing to market, the next great product that consumers love to have and willing to open their wallet for. Steve challenged not only the workers at Apple, he also challenged others in the information and computer industry to do better; and there lies the challenge!

Throughout the challenging times of Steve Jobs later life, Tim Cook was probably being groomed to step into Steve’s shoe. When he stepped down about a month ago, he probably anticipates that Tim will match his creative leadership; and where there was need to shore the slack, Steve was still going to remain as the Chairman of the Board. However, with the event of nature, will CEO Cook, match the creativity, innovation and genius of CEO Jobs? Time will tell. The leverage to the expectation of everyone at Apple may probably be found in the number of product lines in Apple’s pipeline, which Steve Jobs had been part of, before his deteriorating health. Those products represent the power of his genius and the persistence of a revolutionary leader, who saw that he probably would not be here for very long, but prepared capable men and women to challenge themselves to make products that are representative of his genius and leadership.

By rethinking what’s next after the inevitable, Apple’s Chairman, Steve Jobs, would have provided a blue-print of what to expect or what must now be, with his absence. Organizations with tremendous success like Apple sometimes disintegrate or stumble after a charismatic and great leader exits. Apple may or may not suffer this misfortune; however, to avoid the huge gap left from the absence of Steve Jobs, Apple’s executives under their new leadership, must be able to continue to expand the product lines and do just as great a job of communicating the products benefits to the consumer just the way the former Chairman did, when he was with the company. In tough times, when the visionary in a company exits, the company does not have to suffer too much hemorrhaging, if the new leadership endeavors to adhere to the ideals of their former proven and active leader.

Strategic leadership synonymous of the style of Chairman Steve Jobs worked well for the company. Tim Cook may or may not adhere to this leadership style; however, he must be true to the ideals of their former leader that has proven to be result-oriented for the company. Each Apple employee must consider their former boss’s ideal and work to maintain this ideal or create awareness among employees and newer ones in the future, for Apple to remain a global leader in information and computer technology. Over the years, Apple executive suite may have learned one thing or two from Steve Jobs which has made their company a global leader in the industry. Those ideals are still relevant, even in the absence of their visionary inventor and leader.


To a great friend, who has been gracious to spend the better part of the fifty-six years with the world through his inventions and creation, God’s speed!

To his wife and children, let it not be said, that the light dimmed when the great genius exited.

In life, Steve was a great leader and worthy inventor;

In life, Steve brought smiles and warmth to the face of many who sought the iPod; iMac; iPad; iPad2; iPod, iPhone; iPhone4; Macbook air;

In Death, Steve is forever remembered for all the smiles and excitement he brought to the consumer.

May his life and light never dim;

May his loss for your family never be too sorrowful that you may not bear the weight at this time;

May the Good Lord give him eternal rest, Amen.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Constitutional Clash over PPACA: Beware of preconceived notion?

Keywords or Terms: US Supreme Court; Docket Number; Constitutionality; PPACA;  US Department of Justice; Virginia; Florida; NFIB; Liberty University; Katherine Hayes; Sara Rosenbaum

The nation’s highest court of law will be reconvening this week and it is expected that ruling over the issue of the constitutionality of the health care reform law may end up on its docket. Records show there are other cases, about forty-nine on the US Supreme’s Court docket in the current session; but not the constitutionality clash over the PPACA. Legal experts insist though that the high court will not shy away from hearing this case in the current session, as several rulings from other districts and appeal courts have created close to a pandemonium over the issue of the constitutionality of the law. Thus, we must anticipate arguments from attorneys on both sides of the case before the nine-member judgeship court in this session. The blog today contemplates the real and the preconceived notion of the constitutionality of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The issue of a mandate in the law, whether or not our government can require everyone to buy health care insurance is high on the consideration of the constitutionality of the law. The argument for constitutionality of a mandate in the law has been successful in some district courts of appeals while it has failed in others. Some States attorney generals have recruited top litigants to represent their position before the Supreme Court. Likewise, U.S. Department of Justice has developed a core team of their bests to prepare against the onslaught on the law from various interest groups. Arguments that will ensue before the nine-member high court will shine light on the power of congress to make laws and the executive branch to sign into law, bills that have been debated and voted on before congress, even when some provisions in the bills may be controversial. Given that the current criticism over the mandate provisions of the law has been a lightening rod issue between the left and the right, very few will argue that the politicization of debates over the constitutionality of the law may drive the high court to consider the issue now in current session, though the case has not been listed in the Supreme Court’s docket.

The commitment from congress probably led to the issue of inclusiveness of many people in the health care reform law. Opponents of the law however, see the same concept of inclusiveness as bases for procedural errors in the way the law was passed; and a few of these opponents call to question the constitutionality argument for the inclusiveness doctrine associated with the law’s mandate. The provisions in the law have been subjected to antagonism from private citizens, universities, state and federal lawmakers. Attorney General from the State of Virginia has argued that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an unlawful exercise of congressional authority as it violates the State’s sovereignty clause and invalidates the compulsion of individuals from the state to buy health care insurance. Twenty-six states led by the State of Florida, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), and two citizens, argue that in addition to the mandate provisions of the law, the law is in error with respect to the associated tax penalty for not carrying health insurance, establishment of state health insurance exchanges and responsibility of employers to provide coverage or subsidize coverage for their workers, if employing a minimize number of employees.

The inclusiveness doctrine espoused in the law through the mandate provisions was called into question in the Liberty University and Thomas More Law Center’s suit settled by the court; the courts vehemently ruled that the individual mandate of the law is constitutional. The contested provisions in the law with respect to mandate issue were found to be preconceived, even though plaintiffs in the case had legal standing. The provisions are expected to come into effect in 2013; notwithstanding though, the court had issues with the financial obligation that the plaintiffs and citizens will carry come that date. In the case of the Florida et. al v. Sibelius, Federal District Judge Roger Vinson dismissed four of the six counts in contest and allowed for hearing, the remaining two counts which had to do with congressional authority under the commerce law and whether the Medicaid requirements is in violation of state’s sovereignty.

In a November 2010 article, Katherine Hayes and Sara Rosenbaum, succinctly dissected the challenge to congressional power with regard to congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce, highlighting the relevance of the First, Fifth and Tenth amendments to the whole debate regarding whether states may act on any issue that impacts their citizens except congress prevents them from doing likewise. As defined in their article, here are the constitutional issues at stake:

1)      Federal Authority to Regulate Interstate Commerce: The Constitution gives Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The majority of the cases charge that Congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause in enacting the individual requirement to maintain health insurance coverage.

2)      Federal Authority to Tax and Spend: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States.” Article I, Section 2, clause 2, requires direct taxes to be “apportioned among the states.”

3)      The First Amendment: The First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

4)      The Fifth Amendment: The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

5)      The Tenth Amendment: The Tenth Amendment provides that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

All these issues look rather critical and essential to determining the constitutionality of the law. While some Judges and attorneys acknowledge that there may be great argument for and against the constitutionality of the whole law; it is apparent that only the adjudication before the Supreme Court can determine the real merits of these constitutional issues. Current supporters of the law feel some frustration with the basis of the argument of the groups that have brought case against the law in several federal and states courts. The simple reason for this frustration: it is impossible to fulfill all the constitutional requirements in all laws. Laws are made based on available information regarding the need for provisions in the law and lawmakers' decision to enact laws do not rely severally on the constitutional appropriateness, though very important, it hardly drives all the provisions or contents of a law. Their arguments are drawn from amendments to laws experiences after initially passed; and, associated questions from critics regarding whether the law met all the constitutional threshold. The fact that some provisions in the law are deem to be in danger of constitutional requirements, do not invalidate the whole law, as critics would want us to believe. The calls to invalidate the whole law before the lower courts are seen as conscious malice on the part of critics. This is probably a great reason why the Supreme Court may have to save everyone from the misery and nagging question of the constitutionality of PPACA.

When the Supreme court asses a law for its constitutionality, they are usually sensitive to the motive of congress or their intention as to the meaning of the provisions in the law. On a constitutional level, determination are made in suits before the court to correct for mistake where there is the possibility of erroneous danger to the public and or, invalidation of constitutional provisions with respect to the application of the law. More often however, the Nine-judge seating court, simply rule either way, in support or against the constitutionality of the law. Where the judges are generally convinced that their decisions in support or against the constitutionality of the law are rational, either still votes his conscience or position on the critical provisions. Judges are generally convinced that their votes indicate their understanding of the constitutionality of the provisions in the law; or, where the constitution stands on raised issues of merit. In reality, a substantial number of decisions from the high court are based on facts and evidence presented by the prosecutor and defending attorneys. When the Judges sense some danger in the arguments advanced by either supporting or defending attorneys, the judges are generally cautious of their ruling.

The kind of preconceived emotional arguments from either camp on politically charged issues hardly sways these judges. Seasoned attorneys before the supreme court have learned to trust the instincts of the judges by rummaging through their past decisions on high button politically charged cases similar to the one at hand before the high court. Being cautious of past rulings and stance of the individual judge on Supreme Court's bench is how the best of attorneys, or representing attorneys, predict the possibility of a judge ruling in their favor. Seasoned attorneys trust that the judges will rule in a pattern symptomatic of their legal biases; although each is willing to evaluate the merits and argument presented by attorneys before their court, afresh. So, where do the lucks of the pro- and anti-Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act groups stand? No one can tell, until the case is brought before the Supreme Court, arguments presented from both end of the spectrum and the judges hand down a decision. For those in a hurry, maybe it will be wise to wait until the case(s) get a Supreme Court docket number in the current session!