Universal HealthCare - is it possible?

Posted 7 Mar 2014 at 21:26 UTC (updated 19 Mar 2014 at 06:42 UTC) by badvogato Share This

Recently, it has come to my attention of this strange case of Dr. Richard Arjun Karl, a minimal invasive spine surgeon, operating in NJ from 2002 to 2012.
I've read the official judgement and all related testimonies and findings.

Then I read through Dr. Karl's own defense and those who supported him at challenging the status-quo of HealthCare from ALL patients seeking advanced and affordable medical treatment

I wonder if there is any hope chance for this man to do good for others and to be treated justly despite all that has already happened and what has been portrayed of him? Has media already tarnished his reputation and unfairly curtailed his right to a fair trial to uphold a professional priviledge as a skilled practitioner in the new and emerging field of minimally invasive spine surgery, for better and for worse?

Is our Universal Healthcare possible with our current prevailing political and judiciary climate? Dr. Karl opined that Affordable Care act didn't debate much about current problematic and most costly malpractice insurance cost for physicians.

Dr. Richard Karl on youtube

interesting debates on Constitutionality, posted 10 Mar 2014 at 16:58 UTC by sye » (Journeyer)

I'm taking Yale prof. Amar's 'Constituional Law' on coursera.org

I'd like to bookmark a few interesting threads here, remotely related to Dr. Karl case:

judicial activism

FBI string operation


three pending Supreme Court cases

Dr. Richard Karl vs. State of New Jersey, posted 11 Mar 2014 at 14:01 UTC by sye » (Journeyer)

I'm thinking to invite Nina Burleigh and Sam Harris to weigh in on the merits of this case.

These questions are what I have in mind:

A. Affordable Care Act vs. Physicians and patients conflicting views on two sides of 'public' interest.

B. How and why physicians, politicians, attorneys are at odds with one another?

anticanon cases, posted 12 Mar 2014 at 07:41 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

I thought physicians, politicians and attorneys are way too much in sync in Dr. Karl's case.

In my mind, Dr. Karl's case actually related to Slaughterhouse case. Only the 'butchers' are now required to operate _only_ in 'expensive' politician/lawyer controlled hospitals.

Reading anticanon cases by Jamal Greene.

The Koch Brother's are Buying the Midterm Elections, posted 13 Mar 2014 at 05:16 UTC by MichaelCrawford » (Master)

Can I find you the link?


When I search for "koch brothers" at The Columbian's homepage, at the top above the search hits were some AdSenses. The very first one flogged Koch Industries: "Products You Can Depend On".

At $40,000,000,000.00 apiece, Charles and David Kock - pronounced "Coke" - are tied for sixth place as the world's richest men.

They are blowing a lot of their up-by-their-bootstraps - well, no, actually they inherited their first oil company from their father - to purchase political attack ads in hopes of unseating Democrats who support Obamacare.

Obamacare is my ONLY hope of obtaining medical insurance FOR ANY PRICE!

This because I have vast quantities of pre-existing conditions, not just my Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder.

The one time I ever tried to apply for private health insurance, Blue Cross turned me down as I am nearly deaf in my left ear.

Now what kind of sense does that make? I hardly notice unless someone whispers into it.

Mike is back in Jail for the 4th time? , posted 31 Mar 2014 at 12:24 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

How do we prevent our programmers from being charged, repeatedly , with mischief unfairly and subjectively judged from the point of views of average policing professionals?

what venue Dr. Karl can still seek ...? , posted 7 Apr 2014 at 14:03 UTC by sye » (Journeyer)

removal judgement to a federal court, using Federal affordable care act ?

Suing news reporter for bias and unethical influence on the pending of court's proceeding?

Commerce clause and PPACA, posted 6 May 2014 at 12:36 UTC by badvogato » (Master)

Satyanand Kattamuri

"a retired District & Sessions Judge of Indian Judiciary now living in U. S as a permanent resident."

Subject: Coursera 'Constitutional Law' class, thread 1787 "commerce clause':

The basic constitutional principles that constitute the underpinnings of the American constitution and Indian constitution bear close likeness if not identicalness for obvious historical reasons. Unlike in the Constitution of India, the concept of Legislative competence is enshrined in the American Constitution rather briefly. It therefore fell to the lot of the Supreme Court to articulate and improve upon its purport from time to time. In this exercise the concept of ‘commerce clause’ has come in handy and in course of time metamorphosed in the hands of judiciary into the veritable lifeline for the expansive legislative competence of the federal legislature. The concept of commerce clause enjoyed unstinting ascendency to dizzy heights till recently when it hit a stumbling block with the Supreme Court ruling under the present discussion taking a U-turn throwing up a riddle to the academic world to embark upon an inquiry whether such a reverse course of meaning is justified and is in tune with the broad policy as universal health care in this case.

The majority of judges (5) strenuously argued that commerce clause does not efficaciously offer justification to sustain individual mandate requiring everybody to purchase insurance on liberalized terms though, strangely on the ground that commerce clause is available only in cases of regulation of the existing activity impacting interstate commerce but not in cases of new activity ordained by the statute for the first time. They proceeded to categorize the activity contemplated by the impugned Act as belonging to the latter class. This line of argument would have turned out to be finally dispositive of the case dashing the hopes of many needy of health care, low-priced or free, guaranteed under the improvised dispensation envisaged by the impugned Act in question. The alternative line of thinking that suggested that the individual mandate can nevertheless be vindicated by branding it as yet another head of taxation was found appealing to the Chief Justice and that circumstance indeed saved the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But this is apt to generate any amount of uncertainty over the versatility of ‘commerce clause’ in its application in future situations necessitating welfare legislation, especially.

The whole issue turns on resolving the tussle between the two perceptions of the subject of the impugned Act one looking at it as merely the expansion of health care and the other viewing it as altogether a new dispensation of health care. If we closely examine the factual back ground obtaining in the whole of the United States that lead to passing the impugned Act, it is abundantly clear that what the impugned Act endeavors to do is merely to improve upon the pre-existing systems, both state and federal ,bringing them under one roof in terms of policy.

It is a matter of common knowledge that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not first of its kind in the United States. Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law has come to be passed in the year 2006. Its mainstay is individual mandate. There, the uninsured are compelled to procure insurance under pain of penalty. For them all the insurance providers are not necessarily domiciled in Massachusetts. A combined effect of these two facts is nothing short of interstate commerce of health care from which an inference can be safely drawn that health care is already a subject of interstate commerce at least in a part of the United States. It may however be argued that Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law and Affordable Care Act owe their existence to two different jurisdictions and therefore such fusion or combined construction is untenable. In my humble opinion when once the state law overtly or covertly segues into the domain of federal jurisdiction, as in the present case what with Massachusetts Health Care too banking upon interstate commerce of insurance for its effective implementation, whereof in that process metamorphosing itself into interstate commerce of health care, the state law loses its individual identity so much so that it submerges in the federal law on that very same subject. The impugned Act seeks to apply that very model of Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law of which interstate commerce of Insurance is inherent to the entire country. Even the learned justices agree almost in one voice that once an activity is unmistakably shown as falling within the ambit of interstate commerce it is amenable to be validly regulated and regulation in its sweep takes in up gradation as well. Furthermore the existing Medicare and Medicaid in all their formulations are very much entangled with interstate commerce as is evident from the fact that operationally multi-state insurance companies are serving certain components of Medicare as, for example Part D Medicare Prescription Drug plan.

The other contentious issue is that the Supreme Court set aside the provision compelling the states to fall in line with the implementation of the revised version visualized by the impugned Act. The above discussion answers this issue also.

Thus the reluctance to vindicate the constitutionality on the plank of Commerce Clause and the artificial dichotomy between the existing Medicare model and the proposed Medicaid extension under the Impugned Act in order to show them as being two distinct subjects and thereby defeat the valid invocation of “commerce Clause” are not very convincing. Nevertheless further research is commended in order to fully appreciate the central theme of this article.

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!

Share this page