skip to main |
skip to sidebar
No, there were no star crossed lovers or gang rumbles on the dance floor last night at Famous Dave’s in the Uptown area of Minneapolis. But there was a clash of cultures. West Side Story features the irreconcilable differences between two Ethnic cultures. Last night I observed the much less violent and even somewhat humorous intersection of two dance cultures – salsa and swing.
A little background is in order. The Uptown Famous Dave’s restaurant at Hennepin and Lake in southwest Minneapolis doubles as a live music hot spot. Although mostly a blues club, on Monday and Tuesday nights they offer music and dancing in arguably the two most popular dance genres for young people today: Monday night is swing night; Tuesday is salsa night.
My wife and I love to dance. Although we dabble in a variety of dance styles in the general social/ballroom repertoire, we are primarily swing dancers. Now, we won’t pretend to be able to keep up with the 20 something’s who tear up the floor on a typical Monday swing night, but for 50 something’s we hold our own. What I’m trying to say is that in terms of dance culture, we are clearly Jets…er…swingers.
This was painfully clear one of the nights we tagged along with our daughters to a Tuesday salsa night at Famous Dave’s. Although I can do the steps and execute the figures involved in salsa dancing, I am no salsa dancer. I don’t get it; I don’t feel it; I don’t live it. One of my daughters succinctly summed up my effort at the end of the night: “Dad, it’s just too ‘swingy’”.
Well, last night I saw the other side of the mirror. I don’t know if the guy just got his calendar wrong and thought it was Tuesday, or if he truly just loves to dance so much he is willing to step out of his Sharks' territory and cross over to Jet turf, but he clearly was in culture shock. To paraphrase my darling daughter, his dancing was just too “salsa-y”. Don’t get me wrong, he was a really good dancer. I could see he had all the steps down and all the right moves, but there was something noticeably “off” about his dancing. It just was not swing.
“What”, you may ask, “could possibly be so different that you can tell someone is steeped in one style while dancing the other?” Well let me tell you.
Salsa and swing styles[1] are polar opposites. They are the ying and yang, the north and south pole, the Sharks and Jets of up tempo social dancing. One might think it is just because the musical basis is different – African/Latin American for salsa vs. jazz/blues/rag time for swing. But it goes far beyond that. At the core, the difference is in the physics of the dances themselves.
Salsa is smooth where swing is bouncy. In salsa the woman is continually drawn in where in swing she is constantly being cast out. Salsa is a face to face rendezvous; swing is two ships passing in the night. Salsa is a paper clip; swing is a rubber band. Salsa is a chili pepper roasting; swing is popcorn popping. Salsa is controlled; swing is frenetic. Salsa is all hips and arms; swing is all elbows and feet. Salsa can make you blush. Swing can make you bruise. Salsa is intimate where swing is anything but. Salsa is sexy! Swing is sassy!
So, why do I even care? Two reasons. First, I would like to become a better salsa dancer. Although embarrassing my kids is one of the few pure pleasures I have in life (and just compensation for the teen years), I prefer to do it without embarrassing myself at the same time. I think salsa proficiency is within my grasp.
Of course, the mirror has two faces. We are travelling to CA next month to visit our daughters and our older daughter would like us to teach her Latino boyfriend how to swing dance. He is a very good salsa dancer, and I’m sure he will have no problem with the steps. It is more a physics problem. After last night’s Shark-Jet encounter, I think I know where to start.
Notes
[1] For the dance virgins out there - salsa and swing are not just specific dances, they are families of dance. Salsa encompasses salsa, cumbia, bachata, merengue, and others. Swing includes east coast swing, lindy hop, jive, charleston, and others. Here I am referring far more to the families than the individual named dances, as most accomplished dancers in either style shift seamlessly (almost magically) between different dances in the family even within the same song.
In my last post, I dug deep into the Biblical use of the Hebrew word ezer as it relates to God, and subsequently, Eve. But God's intent in his provision for Adam is not fully described by this one word. Now I would like to expand the inquiry to the full phrase that describes what exactly Eve will be for Adam.
For this post I will be using, for purposes of comparison and contrast, two translations of ezer k-neged-u from Genesis 2:18.
King James Version
And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet (ezer k-neged-u) for him.
NIV
The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable (ezer k-neged-u) for him.”
“help meet” vs. “helper suitable” - there is quite a disparity between the two translations. The King James sounds strange to our contemporary minds. It may surprise the reader that “help meet” is actually a far more literal, and accurate, translation than “helper suitable”.
Let's begin with ezer again. There is a subtle difference between the English words “help” and “helper”. The latter is part of the solution to a problem but the former is the solution in and of itself. We see that when the word is used for God. In most cases, God isn't a “helper” per se, leaving it up to us to help ourselves to some degree. No, God is the all inclusive “help”, without which we would be completely helpless.
Which state did Adam find himself in, one where he needed a little assistance or one where he was completely hopeless. Remember that Adam did not need help with any domestic tasks. That is not what Eve was created for. Genesis 2:18 is crystal clear that the only condition that was not good and therefore required a help was Adam's state of being alone. In fact, Adam was hopelessly alone and could do nothing on his own to remedy that situation. This became even more stark of a reality when God had him name the animals and he found none that could cure his alone state. So, did Adam need a helper to fix what was “not good”, or did he need an all encompassing “help”. To me, it is clearly the latter. Eve was Adam's “help”.
This seems like a nit picky semantic exercise to go through but it is important because of the subtle differences between the English words. To an English speaking mind, helper immediately brings to mind synonyms like “assistant” which leads easily to “subordinate”. It is this very thought process, coupled with the tendency to think Adam needed help with the gardening or something, that leads people very easily to believe that Eve was made to be under Adam's authority. Using “help” instead of “helper”, while a little clumsy linguistically, fits much better with the context and reality of Adam's need.
Now on to this other word, neged that translates as “meet” vs. “suitable” in our two example verses. Beginning again with the NIV. To me, “suitable” is a terrible word to describe a person. It makes Eve in the context of the passage sound like some kind of tool. After all, if you need help with domestic chores, the most suitable helper is a domestic servant is it not? Again, it is nit picky, but I really think there are better words than “suitable”, and indeed many translations use alternatives that don't sound quite as domesticating. More on that in a minute.
Turning to the King James, a contemporary English speaker is initially quite stumped. What in the world does “meet” mean? Often we jump to a conclusion: “Well, 'meet' must mean that Eve 'meets' Adam's needs”. While that isn't the worst thought in the world, it really misses the true meaning of this word. Often too, people who have just heard the verse without reading it erroneously translate this as “helpmate” (although one translation – Darby – makes the same mistake). This is going in the wrong direction all together.
The Hebrew word neged actually means “in front of”, as in “standing face to face”. In negative contexts, it means to “oppose”. In positive contexts, it means one thing compliments or corresponds to another thing. So, literally, the King James translation of “meet” is very accurate. Eve is a “help” that “meets” Adam face to face.
Putting that together, can we find a better translation of ezer k-neged-u that removes all aspects of hierarchy and shows the true purpose behind Eve's creation for Adam? I think there are several good candidates.
The New Living Testament phrases it “a companion who will help him”. I certainly agree with the companion part, but I think we can do better.
The New King James has “helper comparable”. That's a little better. And even better still...
Young's Literal translation renders it “helper -- as his counterpart”. That isn't too bad. It certainly removes any thought that Adam was the boss of Eve. “counterpart” and “partner” are very similar words and they really get the sense of neged. Which leads to...
The New American Bible has “suitable partner”. I like “partner”, but as stated before I'm not so keen on “suitable”
The New English Translation gets a little wordy with “a companion for him who corresponds to him”. Seems “corresponding companion” would have done just as well. Never-the-less, I like this. “Companion” focuses on the correct context for the help Eve provides and “corresponding” gets the correct sense of neged. All things considered, this is my favorite.
Eve was indeed Adam's companion, not his helper. This is the correct understanding of ezer in the context, for the problem Adam needed help with was his alone state. A companion was the very “help” that fixed Adam's “not good” state. And she indeed corresponded to him. She was not his clone, but instead was his “standing in front of him” compliment.
Much has been made of the designation of Eve as “helper” for Adam in Genesis 2:18;20. Some claim that it means Eve was designed to provide Adam some domestic aid as he went about his preeminent job of tending the garden. Kind of a “maid with benefits”, if you will. On the other end of the spectrum (where I fall), some point out that the word often translated as “helper” is a word in Scripture that is almost universally used for God. If God is not subordinate to us, how could Eve be subordinate to Adam. Those positions have been long discussed, including here, and I do not intend in this post to resurrect that tired debate (especially since it is clearly settled in my mind). Instead, I want to share a small but significant new irony that I have discovered about this little Hebrew word - ezer.
As mentioned above, the word ezer more often than not is used of God in scripture. In fact, of the 19 occurrences outside of Genesis 2, all but three are in reference to God. But what does this word say about God? And how is that ironic in terms of how we view both Genesis 1-3 and marital relationships in general? Let’s look.
In 5 of the 16 God-reference verses[1], God is spoken of as a “shield of…help” or “help and…shield”. In these verses, God is clearly identified as a protector. He both fights off foes and shields His people from their attacks. One legitimate interpretation of ezer, then, is clearly “protector”.
In 7 more of the 16 verses[2], God is spoken of as a provider or supporter. Phrases such as “may he send you help (ezer)…and support”, and “my help (ezer) comes from the LORD” are examples. So, “provider” is another prominent (in fact, the most prominent) general interpretation of ezer.
“Provider” and “protector” - there is something very familiar about those two words. When do we often hear them in connection with marriage? It is, of course, almost exclusively in reference to husbands. Culture (and many Christian philosophies) tells us that the males are the sole providers and protectors in the marriage and the females are the sole nurturers. Isn’t it ironic that the bible tells us the exact opposite.
Now, to be fair, the translation of ezer as it relates to God that best describes Eve in relation to Adam is “rescuer”, as in “you are my help (ezer) and deliverer”. That occurs in 3 of the 16 verses[3]. The “help” that Eve provides is actually to rescue Adam from his “not good” state of being alone by being an equal partner[4] with him. Still, I can’t help but chuckle that God in His infinite wisdom also turns the concept of gender “roles” on its ear in His provision of Eve for Adam.
Notes
1. Deu 33:29, Psa 33:20, Psa 115:9-11
2. Psa 20:2, Psa 89:19, Psa 121:1-2, Psa 124:8, Psa 146:5, Hsa 13:9
3. Exd 18:4, Deu 33:26, Psa 70:5
4. The final verse with ezer referring to God - Deu 33:7 - shows God as a fellow warrior, standing side by side as an equal with His people.
So, I was thinking about the quintessential song for the day after the election.
...
- I suppose "It's The End of the World As We Know It" would be fitting, especially for Republicans who will crow the tag with glee: "...and I feel fine".
- Democrats may be more inclined to sing "There's Got To Be A Morning After" from The Poseidon Adventure. Certainly they will feel like their ship has been flipped by a Republican tidal wave.
- And Independents will probably be belting out "I Did It My Way", considering they have been the determining group for both the Democratic waves in '06 and '08 and now the Republican über-tsunami in 2010.
- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will surely be crying on each other's shoulder as they moan "Nobody Knows the Trouble I Seen".
- But most sorrowful will probably be the President's song. I can hear it now, softly wafting over the grounds of the White House, that Grandpa Jones classic: "Nobody Loves Me Anymore"
I think I'm out of my Obamacare funk and ready to post on non-political matters again. I know, I know, it's about time. Anyway, expect some more marriage posting soon. Considering I just had a nephew get married and will walk my daughter down the aisle in less than a couple of months, I think I am in the right frame of mind for it.
I will keep an updated list of lawsuits against the new healthcare reform law in this post with comments on progress.
last updated 11/14/2011
Breaking News - Supreme Court Agrees To Hear ObamaCare Cases.
The Score Card
Total number of lawsuits - 28
Active - 21
Undecided - 7
Decided with Appeals - 11
Decided pending appeal - 3
Decided-Closed - 7
Decided - 21
Dismissed/Judgement for Defendant - 18
Judgement for Plaintiff - 3
Decided Appeals - Circuit Court - 5
Upheld/Overturned or Dismissed for Defendant - 4
Upheld or Overturned for Plaintiff - 1
States that are actively or about to sue (29):
(FL et al) AK, AL, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MI, ME, MS, ND, NE, NV, OH, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY (individual suits) VA, MO, OK
States that will not (as of today) sue (22):
AR, CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, KY, MA, MD, MN, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, TN, VT, WV
State Lawsuits
State of FL et al v. US DHHS et al
3:2010-cv-00091 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/2010 filed - Current plaintiff states (26): FL, SC, NE, TX, UT, LA, AL, MI, CO, PA, WA, ID, SD, IN, ND, MS, AZ, NV, GA, AK, IA, KS, ME, OH, WI, WY
National Federation of Independent Business also added
Additional interested state parties via briefs
For the plaintiffs
Govenors: MN, RI
For the defendants
States' Attorneys General: OR, IA, VT
Govenors: CO, MI, PA, WA (in conflict with their AG's)
10/14/2010 Motion to Dismiss denied on counts 1 (individual mandate - Commerce Clause) and 4 (medicaid impacts - 10th Amendment)
12/16/2010 Hearing on motion(s) for summary judgement
1/18/2010 GA AG Joins (Govenor was part of original states), IA Govenor Joins (in conflict with AG). KS, ME, OH, WI, WY Join.
1/31/2011 Summary Judgement for Plaintiffs on count 1 (individual mandate) - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional
2/28/2011 Appealed to 11th Circuit by non-party petitioner. 11-10894-H
3/2/2011 Judge stays order......contingent on the defendants submitting a motion for expedited appeal with the appelate court or SCOTUS within 7 days.
3/8/2011 Appealed to 11th Circuit by defendants. 11-11021.
6/8/2011 11th Circuit: oral arguments
8/12/2011 Upheld in Favor of Plaintiff
Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius
3:2010-cv-00188 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/201 filed
8/2/2010 Motion to dismiss denied
10/18/2010 Hearing on motions for summary judgement
12/13/2010 Summary judgement for Plaintiffs - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional
1/19/2011 Both parties appeal to the 4th Circuit (11-1057, 11-1058)
1/20/2011 Appeals case consolidated into 11-1057
1/26/2011 Expedited briefing granted and oral argument scheduled for May 10-13, 2011. Case will be argued in conjunction with Liberty University, Inc. et al v. Geithner et al
2/9/2011 Petition to SCOTUS by Plaintiff 10-1014
4/25/2011 Petition to SCOTUS denied
9/8/2011 4th Circuit: Dissmissed - Standing
Kinder et al v. Department of Treasury et al
1:2010-cv-00101 (PACER Locator - login required)
7/7/2010 Filed - suit by MO Lt Gov Kinder and others both as a private citizen and in his official capacity of Lt. Gov. as the government advocate for the state's elderly.
7/9/2010 Motion to intervene and for partial dismissal filed by MO AG claiming only he can advocate legally for the MO state government.
8/20/2010 Motion to intervene withdrawn
1/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss
4/26/2011 Dismissed - Jurisdiction
4/29/2011 Appealed to the 8th Circuit 11-1973
10/17-10/21/2011 8th Circuit: oral arguments
Pruit v. Sebelius et al
6:2011-cv-00030 (PACER Locator - login required)
Oklahoma suit
1/7/2011 Announced
1/24/2011 Filed
3/28/2011 Motion to Dismiss
Individual Lawsuits
Thomas More Law Center, et al v. POTUS et al
2:2010-cv-11156 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/2010 Filed
10/21/2010 Dismissed
12/15/2010 Appealed to 6th Circuit 10-2388
6/29/2011 Upheld in Favor of Defendant
7/27/2011 Appealed to SCOTUS 11-117
Liberty University, Inc. et al v. Geithner et al
6:2010-cv-00015 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/23/201 Filed
10/22/2010 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
11/30/2010 Dismissed
12/3/2010 Appealed to 4th Circuit 10-2347
1/26/2011 Oral argument scheduled for May 10-13, 2011. Case will be argued in conjunction with Commonwealth of VA v. Sebelius
9/8/2011 4th Circuit: Dissmissed - Standing
New Jersey Physicians, Inc. et al v. Obama et al
2:2010-cv-01489 (PACER Locator - login required)
3/24/2010 Filed
7/28/2010 Motion to dismiss
12/7/2010 Dismissed
12/14/2010 Appealed to 3rd Circuit 10-4600
6/22/2011 3rd Circuit: oral arguments
8/3/2011 Upheld in Favor of Defendant
Baldwin et al v. Sebelius et al
3:2010-cv-01033 (PACER Locator - login required)
5/14/2010 Filed
8/27/2010 Dismissed
9/1/2010 Appealed to 9th Circuit 10-56374
9/17/2010 Petition to SCOTUS 10-369
11/8/2010 Petition to SCOTUS denied
Mead et al v. Holder et al
1:2010-cv-00950 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
6/9/2010 Filed - suit by the American Center for Law and Justice
8/10/2010 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
8/20/2010 Motion to Dismiss
1/31/2011 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
2/22/2011 Dismissed
2/25/2011 Appealed to DC Circuit 11-5047
9/23/2011 DC Circuit: oral arguments
Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Sebelius
6:2010-cv-00277(PACER Locator - login required)
6/3/2010 Filed - Another provider initiated lawsuit
8/17/2010 Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Motion for Summary Judgement
9/29/2010 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and (defendant) Motion for Summary Judgement
11/24/2010 Bench Trial Cancelled.
2/15/2011 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
2/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss denied (jurisdiction issue only)
3/31/2010 Summary Judgement for Defendant
6/9/2011 Appealed to the 5th Circuit 11-40631
Purpura et al v. Sebelius et al
3:2010-cv-04814 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
9/20/2010 Filed
10/7/2010 Case reassigned
12/9/2010 Motion for summary judgement (plaintiffs)
1/17/2011 Cross Motion to Dismiss
1/18/2011 (postponed) Motion for summary judgement to be decided
2/22/2011 (sched) Motion for summary judgement and any motion to dismiss to be decided
4/22/2011 Dismissed - Standing
5/12/2011 Appealed to 3rd Circuit 11-2303
U.S. Citizens Association et al v. Obama et al
5:2010-cv-01065 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
5/12/2010 Filed
8/12/2010 Motion to Dimiss
9/1/2010 Ammended Complaint
9/16/2010 Second Amended Complaint
10/8/2010 Motion to Dismiss
11/23/2010 Motion to Dismiss count 1 (Individual Mandate unconstitutional) denied. Counts 2-4 dismissed.
1/24/2010 Cross Motions for Summary Judgement
2/28/2011 Court issues final judgement on counts 2-4 so that they may be immediately appeal, if desired. Count 1 remains open.
3/18/2011 Dismissal of counts 2-4 appealed to 6th circuit. Count 1, Individual Mandate, still remains before district court.
4/27/2011 Case suspended "pending a ruling by the Sixth Circuit in Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Obama"
7/1/2011 Summary Judgement for Defendant per precedent of 6th Circuit decision in Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Obama
7/27/2011 Appealed to 6th Circuit 11-3798
Peterson v. USA et al
1:2010-cv-00170 (PACER Locator - login required)
5/4/2010 Filed - Claims assumed reductions in Medicare benefits and increased costs are unconstitutional.
8/16/2010 Motion to dismiss
12/20/2010 Ammended Complaint
3/10/2011 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
3/30/2011 Dismissed - subject matter jurisdiction
Bellow v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cv-00165 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/24/2010 Filed - First private citizen lawsuit
11/29/2010 Motion to Dismiss
12/20/2010 Plaintiff Motion for Summary Judgement
3/21/2011 Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal
6/20/2011 Dismissed - subject matter jurisdiction
Goudy-Bachman et al v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cvs-00763 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/9/2010 Filed - 2 Pennsylvania residents
6/14/2010 Motion to Dismiss
1/24/2011 Motion to Dismiss denied as to jurisdiction, standing, and ripeness of the plaintiff's financial burden claims. Separate opinion on Motion to Dismiss as to constitutionality of the Individual Mandate forthcoming.
6/21/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Defendants
7/6/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Plaintiffs
9/13/2011 Summary judgement for Plaintiffs - Individual Mandate struck down as unconstitutional
Walters et al v. Holder, Jr. et al
2:2010-cv-00076 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
4/2/2010 Filed - Three Mississippi residents
8/1/2010 Motion to dismiss
2/3/2011 Dismissed as to standing with a 30 day leave to ammend the complaint
3/4/2011 Amended complaint
4/12/2011 Motion to dismiss in part and for jurisdictional discovery
Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Sebelius et al
1:2010-cv-00499 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
3/26/2010 Filed
6/11/2010 Case Reassigned
7/29/2010 Motion to Dismiss
8/23/2010 Ammended Complaint
9/13/2010 Second Amended Complaint
11/12/2010 Motion to Dismiss
11/22/2010 Amended Motion to Dismiss
3/30/2011 Case reassigned
Calvey et al v. Obama et al
5:2010-cv-00353 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/7/2010 Filed - 16 Oklahoma residents
4/8/2010 Case Reassigned
8/6/2010 Ammended suit to allow class action (currently 1,162 plaintiffs)
2/15/2011 Motion to Dismiss
4/26/2011 Dismissed in part. Only some claims (related to mandate) for only the uninsured plaintiffs remain to be adjudicated.
Sissel v. US DHHS et al
1:2010-cv-01263 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
7/26/2010 Filed - suit by the Pacific Legal Foundation
11/15/2010 Motion to Dismiss
6/3/2011 Case Reassigned
8/9/2011 Case suspended pending a ruling by the DC Circuit in Mead vs. Holder
Coons et al v. Geithner et al
2:2010-cv-01714 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
8/12/2010 Filed - suit by the Goldwater Institute
11/15/2010 Motion for Preliminary Injunction
3/10/2011 Motion for Preliminary Injunction withdrawn
3/11/2011 Amended Complaint
4/18/2011 Motion to Dismiss
5/10/2011 Ammended Complaint
5/31/2011 Motion to Dismiss
6/13/2011 Motion to Dismiss found moot
6/20/2011 Motion for Partial Summary Judgement by Plaintiffs
8/10/2011 Motion for Summary Judgement by Defendants
Enloe et al v. Obama et al
5:2011-cv-00026 (PACER Locator - login required)
2/11/2011 Filed. This is basically the Shreeve case refiled in another district
5/31/2011 Motion to Dismiss
Potential Lawsuits
Closed Lawsuits
Taitz v. Obama
1:2010-cv-00151 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint (applicable amended section begins page 5))
Amended filing to a "birther" lawsuit.
Motion filed to consolidate suit with St of FL et al.
4/8/2010 Motion denied
4/14/2010 Amended suit dismissed
Shreeve v. Obama et al
1:2010-cv-00071 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/8/2010 Filed - 10th Amendment case brought by an individual - interesting. Names Reid and Pelosi as defendants. (This is the suit from the TN State Rep Candidate Van Irion, who is acting as the plaintiff's attorney)
7/19/2010 Motion for peliminary injunction
7/19/2010 Suit becomes national class action w/ 25,000+ plaintiffs (including my daughter)
8/27/2010 Motion to dismiss
11/4/2010 Dismissed
Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots, L.L.C. v. Sebelius et al
2:2010-cv-00893 (PACER Locator - login required)
4/22/2010 Filed - The Tea Party joins the fight
6/17/2010 Dismissed
Burlsworth et al v. Department of Justice et al
4:2010-cv-00258 (PACER Locator - login required) (Link to Complaint)
4/27/2010 Filed - This is the Secure Arkansas suit
8/3/2010 Motion to dismiss
9/8/2010 Plaintiffs withdraw complaint
Independent American Party of NV et al v. Obama et al
2:2010-cv-01477 (PACER Locator - login required)
8/31/2010 Filed
1/19/2011 Case Reassigned
3/7/2011 Dismissed - no proof of service
Archer v. U.S. Senate - dismissed 4/12/10. This was a complaint against "the cornhusker kickback". Case was dismissed because plaintiff did not pay fee.
Mackenzie v. Shaheen - dismissed 5/26/10. This was a suit originally filed in county court in New Hampshire and then moved to Federal District Court, which claims denial of plaintiff's due process rights by his elected representatives in relation to the "unfair means" in which the ObamaCare bill was written, debated, and voted upon. Dismissed as defendants, the plaintiff's US Senator and Congresspersons, have "legislative immunity from suit based upon legitimate legislative activities".
Additional suits listed on m.whitehouse.gov blog. I do not include any of these in the totals because I either can find no record of them or they are not ObamaCare cases.
Sollars v. Reid - dismissed 4/2/10. I find no record of this case on PACER
Heghmann v. Sebelius - dismissed 5/14/10. I find no record of this case on PACER
Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius - dismissed on 6/21/10. This is a case against the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity
Act of 2008, not ObamaCare.
Other News
10/26/2011 Health cases set for Nov. 10 SCOTUS Conference
Scotusblog opens commentary on pending healthcare reform lawsuits with this roundup
Commentators continue to speculate on the role of the Court in potential challenges to Congress’ passage of health care reform late Sunday. At the ACS blog, Simon Lazarus writes in an issue brief that mandating the purchase of health insurance is “lawful and clearly so” under the Commerce Clause and/or the General Welfare Clause. At Vanity Fair, Andrew Cohen predicts that in a possible 5-4 Supreme Court decision, Justice Kennedy and his swing vote would be “quite open and warm to the notion of federal intervention on health care.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost reviews relevant Supreme Court Commerce Clause jurisprudence and concludes that the bill is likely to survive potential legal challenges. Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog also weighs in on the subject.
News organizations concur with a unified chorus of: "Legal experts say they [the lawsuits] have little chance of succeeding". Who are these legal experts and what Constitution are they looking at? I feel like I have stepped into a rupture in the space/time continuum and have been instantly transported to a much darker parallel America where Joe Biden has a gotee and the Commerce Clause of the constitution now reads:
"[The Congress shall have power] To COMPEL Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"
Seriously, please, I beg of you, will some constitutional scholar come here to explain to my feeble mind how the individual mandate in Obamacare can be constitutional. I know you are out there because you keep telling everyone in the press that it is true. But I can't fathom it.
So what is next?
If the government decides that we need to emit fewer green house gases (a noble endeavor), can they now compel us to go out and buy wind generators, solar panels, and hybrid cars? I know they can incentivize us to make such purchases, but can they literally force us to? Apparently, according to the legal experts, that is simply "regulating" commerce. If the government decides that it is healthy to take some time off work each year (demonstrably true), can they now compel us to fly to Cancun for a week? I would love it if they would incentivize THAT but can they force it? It would appear so. And what if the government decides our population is too big (can you say china)? Can they compel us to purchase birth control, get sterilized, and have abortions for the general welfare? After all, those are simply different kinds of commerce.
I guess the founders had just such an exercise of federal power in mind when they wrote the commerce clause, because the legal experts all agree that such forced purchasing is in there somewhere. I can’t see it. But I’m no expert.
From the “have a nice glass of kool-aide” Dept: Ha! For all of you who cheered the President’s constant sniping at the health insurance industry and bought his promise that Obamacare will end “evil insurance company practices”, this just in from Wall Street.
“The major health insurance and provider stocks leaped upward on the open, as expected. (They just acquired 32 million new customers in the most ideal way: it’s now illegal not to buy their products.)” (Francis Cianfrocca - redstate.com)
Thank you Obamacare supporters. Since I work for the largest (and, I suppose, inherently most evil) of those insurance companies you have given me job security for the foreseeable future. Of course, I hate this unconstitutional and despicable bill, but thanks to Speaker Pelosi and her kool-aide drinking Reps., I at least will enjoy gainful employment for the rest of whatever.
One of the ways that health systems are measured is in terms of wait times for procedures. The knocks against government run systems is that wait times are painfully (literally) long due to inadequate doctor availability. This week, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article that predicts severe doctor shortages if ObamaCare is put into place. With the doctor availability (or lack thereof) side of the equation seeming to be inevitable, the question of wait times deserves a serious answer. If wait times truly will increase dramatically, the pain and suffering of American patients could increase proportionally. So, is it true that wait times are significantly longer in government run systems? I submit my gall bladder surgery as a case in point.
A few years ago, I finally had my gall bladder out. Although not life threatening, the status of my gall stones had come to a point where I was having painful attacks on almost a weekly basis. I could grin and bear it, but it had really come time to "get 'er done". I did not consider my situation urgent in a purely medical sense, nor did my physician consider it so. I will share the chronology of my surgery in our private health care system in a moment, but first let's look at how it might have been handled in another country.
It takes a little digging, but one can find average wait time statistics for surgeries in the various countries (or provinces) that have government run health systems. Here is a brief list of what I found for gall bladder removal (cholesystectomy):
New South Wales, Australia. Non-urgent, 3 months; urgent, 3 weeks. (2006/2007 data)
British Columbia, Canada. 3 months (No division by urgency. 2008 data)
England. 2-3 months (No division by urgency. 2004/2005 data)
Now, I know this is hardly an exhaustive study. But I think it is clear and very common knowledge that if you need an elective cholesystectomy in a government system, you are going to wait anywhere from a few weeks to a lot of months. So, what was my experience?
I had my gall stones diagnosis several years before my surgery. At that point in time, I was having only rare attacks and I could kind of manage things by diet. When the stones did cause irritation, it was often relieved with over the counter pain rememdies. That fairly quickly took a turn for the worse a few years ago. So I decided to go into the local clinic and see if I could have the problem taekn care of.
I called to set up an appointment with a general surgeon at the clinic. My wait for that appointment was...well...there was no wait. They asked if I could come in that day, and I could, and I did. The doctor did a standard physical and asked a few diagnostic questions. When he confirmed that I did indeed have gall stones and that it would be recommended that I have my gall bladder removed, we had the following conversation:
Doctor - "well I suppose you would like this done as soon as possible"
Me - "yup"
Doctor - "when are you available to have the surgery"
Me - "my schedule at work is pretty flexible, so really any time"
Doctor - "how about tomorrow"
Obviously, I agreed. Just as with my initial appointment, my wait time was virtually 0 days. But it gets even more impressive. The doctor said that I would need to have a pre-operative physical before surgery, and that would need to be done "today". He talked to the nurse coordinator, they scheduled the surgery at teh hospital of my choice (I had three to choose from), and then scheduled my pre-op physical at thier nearby sister clinic for an hour later.
Now, I know that my experience may also be a slight outlier. But I have no doubt it is fairly representative of how surgery gets handled here in America with our fully private system. My experience supports the anecdotal and statistical evidence that government run systems are far less responsive to patient needs, especially the needs for diagnostic testing and treatment. ObamaCare would change all of that, adversely altering wait times and a variety of other health care quality factors.
The people at capitolconnect.com have made it possible for anyone to email their representative and all of the blue-dog Democrats in the House of Representatives regarding President Obama and the Democrats' healthcare reform bill. They even allow you to edit the default message to make it a personal appeal. Here is what I wrote to congress:
I write to encourage you to oppose government-run health care and any legislation which might broaden the federal government's control over my health care. I hope that you fight against health care legislation that would drive up costs, diminish quality and limit access.
I am a person who has been touched by the healthcare industry all my life. My father was a physician - an anesthesiologist - who even in the 70's saw upwards of 20% of his gross income go to malpractice insurance premiums. In my youth I worked as a nursing assistant on the delivery side of healthcare, caring for patients in both hospital and long term care settings. My wife also worked in healthcare delivery at the practitioner level, running a doctors office for the first few years of our married life. For the last 25+ years, I have worked on the payer/managed care side of the healthcare equation. Currently, I am a financial analyst for one of the top 3 healthcare companies in the world. I not only manage forecasting and budget for a $500M piece of our business, but work with our actuaries to develop premium rates.
When I weigh all of this experience against the current proposed legislation, and more importantly, the rhetorical basis for that legislation, I am frankly shocked at both the inadequacy of the bill to address the REAL healthcare reform needs of this country and the deceitful and inaccurate claims about our wonderful healthcare system. At the core of my disgust is the failure of the bill to address the true problem in the current system - cost. Defensive medicine and out of control malpractice rewards are a large factor in driving costs up. These constantly rising costs in turn are the major contributor to insurance premium rate increases. Government regulation in the form of mandated benefits also adds to the cost equation. And a lack of competition because of rigid, state based obstacles to product marketing removes the last hope of pushing costs down.
The current bill not only fixes none of these real problems but will exacerbate a good many of them. As doctors flee the system because they can't survive financially, the quality of and access to care will go dramatically down and cause an actual increase in prices due to supply and demand dynamics. All of the “pork” in the bill simply heaps waste on top of bad policy.
For all of these reasons I implore you to take the sensible and responsible approach to the current healthcare bill and vote against it. I hope you get that opportunity soon so that you and your colleagues, our servants in the machine of government, can turn your attention to issues that really are affecting our country in this current tumultuous time – jobs and the economy.
Posts
