Healthcare Friday: Tea Party candidate benefited from 'unconstitutional' Medicaid program

Joe Miller, the Republican nominee in Alaska's tight Senate race, admitted Thursday that his family received federally subsidized healthcare benefits through programs he considers unconstitutional.

Miller, a father of eight who's running on a platform of fiscal conservatism, said his family received health benefits through Medicaid and Denali Care, Alaska's Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which is funded primarily with federal dollars, the Anchorage Daily News reported Thursday.

"I have the same sort of struggles in my past that other people have had," Miller said Thursday, according to the Daily News. "There is a proper role for government. The question is, who controls the power, is it at the federal level or the state level? It’s our perspective that the state is the best arbiter, the state is the best point at which we make those decisions."

Miller, a Tea Party candidate who defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) in the August GOP primary, is calling both to privatize the nation's entitlement programs and to shift them under state control. Those programs aren't authorized by the Constitution, he says, and need reforming to rein in federal spending.

"That doesn’t mean we cut off the programs," he said Thursday. "That is ultimately a state decision."

Murkowski doesn't buy it

Miller's statements weren't overlooked by Murkowski, who's running against Miller as a write-in candidate in November's midterms.

“What I find so hypocritical about Miller is he has stated repeatedly his opposition to these programs, stating that they are unconstitutional," Murkowsi said, according to the Daily News. "So if you believe they are unconstitutional then why would you avail yourself of these safety nets? … You either walk the talk, or you don’t."

In fund-raising efforts during the primary, Miller had criticized Murkowski for voting with Democrats in early 2009 to expand the CHIP program. 

On Thursday, Miller said he was being critical of the expansion, not CHIP itself, the Daily News reported.

Defending his decision to accept the government help, Miller said the nation's budget crisis wasn't as severe at the time.

"We’ve also got a federal government today which is in completely different conditions than it used to be," he said, according to the Daily News. "At the time, I don’t know what the deficit was, but it certainly was less than half, I believe, than what it was today." http://bit.ly/cHFCb6

Federal judge upholds individual mandate

A federal judge in Michigan ruled Thursday that a new law requiring individuals to buy health insurance or face a financial penalty does not violate the Constitution.

The conservative Thomas More Law Center and four individuals had sued the Obama administration over the individual insurance mandate, arguing that it violates the Constitution's commerce clause.

But U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh found differently, ruling that the financial penalty is "incidental" to the law's primary goals of increasing coverage and cutting costs. Therefore, Steeh wrote, the "plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the penalty as an improperly apportioned direct tax is without merit."

DOJ is quick to applaud

The Department of Justice issued a brief statement, cheering the decision.

"This ruling marks the first time a court has considered the merits of any challenge to this law and we welcome the court's decision upholding the health care reform statute as constitutional," DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in an email. "The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health care system. The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation."

Others aren't so sure

Randy Barnett, law professor at Georgetown University, argued that Steeh's ruling simply reinforces what critics of the mandate have said all along: a requirement by government to purchase a product has no precedence in law. 

"Never before in American history has the U.S. Government imposed an economic mandate commanding that persons engage in economic activity," Barnett wrote. "Given that there is no current Supreme Court doctrine recognizing such power in Congress, the appropriate stance of a district court judge is to follow Supreme Court precedent and deny this claim of power until the Supreme Court decides in due course to expand its doctrine." http://bit.ly/cbwz2s

In Nevada, Angle (falsely) accuses Reid of endorsing Viagra coverage for pedophiles

GOP Senate hopeful Sharron Angle launched a new ad Thursday accusing her opponent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), of supporting legislation to subsidize Viagra for sex offenders.

The reference is to an amendment to the healthcare bill, offered in March by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), “prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists.” It was one of a long list of proposals Republicans offered on the Senate floor as a last ditch attempt to kill the larger proposal. http://bit.ly/bh22Nt

All of those amendments were tabled — mostly along party lines — to keep the underlying bill intact. http://bit.ly/dyY4BP

In Angle's book, that's an endorsement for funding Viagra for pedophiles.

"Want to know just how out of touch Harry Reid is?" the narrative begins. "Reid actually voted to use taxpayer dollars to pay for Viagra — for convicted child molesters and sex offenders.

"What else could you ever need to know about Harry Reid?" http://bit.ly/bpqD71

Reid's office was quick to respond, with spokeswoman Kelly Steele telling Politico that the ad is another example of Angle's “‘pathological’ pattern of lying to the voters of Nevada in pursuit of her extreme and dangerous political agenda.” http://politi.co/8XU37f

White House justifies those waivers

Stephanie Cutter, assistant to the president for special projects, offered a lengthy explanation Thursday behind dozens of HHS waivers exempting companies from the new insurance reforms contained in the healthcare law.

The waivers came after companies like McDonald's — which offer low-premium, low-benefit health plans called mini-med policies — threatened to drop coverage altogether if they were forced to adhere to new rules eliminating caps on annual coverage.

"The good news is that in 2014 'mini-med' policies will be a thing of the past. The bad news is that today they are the only option for many Americans who can’t afford coverage on the individual market," Cutter wrote on the White House blog. 

"But between now and 2014, we want to ensure that these workers are able to maintain their best available coverage option. … So, to ensure that we’re not creating a whole new population of uninsured Americans and causing significant disruption in the marketplace, HHS created a process to provide temporary waivers from complying with the new annual limit rules. 

"These waivers are only granted if insurers and employers show that such rules would lead to significantly higher premiums or a significant decrease in access to care," Cutter adds. "In addition, these waivers are temporary.  Insurance companies must reapply for the waivers each year, and they will not be available beginning in 2014 when annual limits are completely banned. 

"This policy isn’t about mollifying insurers, it’s about protecting consumers." http://bit.ly/a1Tnd6