Surfing the Web for Human Rights

By Sally Derohanessian, 1L

Ever since Iranian protests erupted against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s disputed presidential victory following the 2009 election, the Iranian government has engaged in cyberwarfare with the opposition party. The opposition, also known as the “Twitter Revolution” for their reliance on Twitter to mobilize their efforts, is seeking worldwide support to overthrow the suppressive regime. The struggle between Iran’s authoritarian government and the opposing pro-democratic party creates a dynamic battle transcending the meaning of human rights to a different magnitude – one that is carried through the internet. Iranian leaders came to realize the power of the internet as a powerful networking tool and attacked the opposition movement by shutting down Twitter and blocking millions of foreign and domestic sites, including CNN, BBC, and some Google services.

In an effort to counter internet censorship, the United States has made a recent decision to lift sanctions on various online services. The Treasury Department has decided to allow companies such as Google and Microsoft to export free mass-market software to Iran, while U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is taking steps to develop mobile applications that will help citizens of repressive governments report problems. “Personal Internet-based communications like e-mail, instant messaging and social networking are powerful tools,” said Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin. Wolin also stated, “This software will foster and support the free flow of information – a basic human right – for all Iranians.”

During mass demonstrations in the squares of Iran, social networking sites became powerful tools not only for organizing the protests, but also for communicating with the Iranian Diaspora across the world. Members of the opposition were able to network using the internet by posting news, photos, and videos showing the government’s use of violence against protestors. YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook became the world’s looking glass. Footage of 26-year-old Neda Agha Soltan, a young Iranian woman participating in the protests, was captured after she was shot by government officials and bled to death. Videos and photos depicting her final moments were scattered across the globe through internet sites. While the Iranian government denies responsibility for her death, the pictures speak in loud volumes and prove otherwise.

Soltan became a martyr for basic human rights, voicing Iran’s need for change after persistent restrictions on freedom of expression. Since the creation of the world’s first Islamic Republic thirty years ago, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini promised a free Iran. However, the government’s restriction of freedom of speech, belief, and expression over time created an Iran that is anything but free. Ethnic and religious minorities as well as women and students in Iran continue to face widespread discrimination and arbitrary abuse.

According to Jon Leyne from BBC News, the role of the internet in helping the opposition mobilize their efforts demonstrates “raw power” to the world. Unlike similar revolutions in the past that may be forgotten or remain in the shadows of history, the world will remember the power of the media as images from a controlled society came pouring into the lives of people across the globe. “This is not about the opposition [Green] Movement in Iran now,” said Professor Khoini, a visiting scholar at Stanford. “This is about democracy and the fact that when people have access to information, they can make wise choices.”

By Alex Hoffman, 3L

On Tuesday, March 23, Pres. Barack Obama signed the Health Care Reform bill into law after the House of Representatives passed the Senate’s version of the bill the previous Sunday in an eleventh-hour vote of 219-212. The vote was largely down party lines with 219 House Democrats voting in favor of the bill and House Republicans and 34 Democrats voting against it. Upon the bill’s passage in the House, after a hard fought battle lasting half a year, Obama declared, “We proved that this government, a government of the people and by the people, still works for the people.”

Despite the victory for the president and the Democratic Congress, congressional Republicans and the majority of the population are not celebrating. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released March 22 shows that 39 percent of voters approve of the Health Care Reform bill, with 59 percent who disapprove. Up until the bill’s passage, there has been a notable decline in support, and it has taken a toll on the approval ratings for both Obama and Congress. The same CNN/Opinion Research poll shows Obama with 46 percent approval rating, compared to 51 percent who disapprove. Congress’s numbers have typically been much lower than a sitting president’s approval, but a CBS News poll released March 22 finds that 14 percent of voters approve of job Congress is doing, with a whopping 76 percent who disapprove.

The legislation would seek to cover approximately 32 million Americans who lack any form of health insurance, in addition to barring insurance companies from rejecting patients who have pre-existing medical conditions. This portion of the bill would go into effect in six months. The bill also includes a mandate, requiring all individuals to own some form of health insurance, or else pay a fine. Employers with 50 or more employees also are mandated to provide insurance for their workers or face a fine of up to $3,000 for each uninsured individual. These provisions won’t take effect until 2014. By 2016, the penalty for those who do not purchase health insurance will be 2.5 percent of taxable income or $695, whichever is greater. Small businesses will be given subsidies to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. The total cost of the bill is approximately $1.1 trillion over 10 years and is expected to be funded by new taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year as well as couples earning more than $250,000 a year, taxes on the sale of medical devices, annual fees on pharmaceutical companies, annual fees by the insurance industry, all in addition to insurance premiums and taxes on individual and family health plans.

Just days after the bill’s passage in the House, the legislation has been challenged on multiple fronts from a political, a legislative and a constitutional standpoint. Republican campaign groups have been airing ads attacking health care reform, using slogans such as “Stop the .” Many Republican Congressional candidates for the 2010 midterm elections have promised to work to repeal the bill. Despite Obama signing the bill into law, the Senate still has to pass a 150-page addendum to the legislation, which includes “fixes” to the bill, giving Senate Republicans an opportunity to modify the reform in their favor. A total of 13 states have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the legislation, alleging the health care reform violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the 10th Amendment. States that are party to the lawsuit include Texas, Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Washington.

Political analysts are mixed as to the legislation’s political impact on the midterm elections. Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling told Reuters that the passage of health care reform will likely hurt the Democrats, stating, “A lot of voters simply believe that the president and Congress should have been more focused the past year on the economy.” While many Republicans are arguing the bill’s passage will create a backlash against the Democrats in November, some pundits on the right argue the opposite. David Frum, former speechwriter for former Pres. George W. Bush, posted a critique on his website FrumForum, on the Republican Party’s refusal to compromise, calling the bill the Republicans’ Waterloo.

Obama and Congressional Democrats hope the health care reform will gain public support once enacted and have continued to liken the overhaul to other more popular social welfare programs. Following the passage of the health care bill in the House of Representatives, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed to House members, “You will be joining those who established Medicare and Social Security and now, tonight, health care for all Americans.” While the health care reform stands as a legislative victory for Obama and the Democratic Congress, the fate of the new entitlement program has yet to be sealed due to the numerous challenges to the legislation.

Southwestern Law School

On Jan.12, the unthinkable happened: at approximately 4:53 p.m. local time, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck the Ouest Province, about 15 miles from Port au Prince, the capital city of Haiti, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The quake directly affected Port-au-Prince, Carrefour and Jacmel, as well as other areas to the west and south of Port-au-Prince. Cities and towns in the earthquake’s radius suffered overwhelming amounts of physical damage, as buildings collapsed through the region.

The quake caused a substantial amount of damage in part because the earthquake itself was very shallow, centered only 8.1 miles beneath the surface. The quake’s energy released very close to the surface, causing violent ground shaking. Unofficial UGSC reports indicate that the quake may have lasted up to a minute long.

Prior to the earthquake, Haiti’s infrastructure was particularly fragile. In 1804, Haiti became the first independent Latin American country and the first Black-led republic to eliminate slavery with the successful Haitian Revolution from the French. However, since that time, Haiti has suffered from numerous occupations, interventions, and coups as well as from weak national leadership. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. And in 2008, Haiti suffered a rapid succession of Hurricanes: Fay, Gustav, Hanna, and Ike, which occurred within a four-week span. The 2008 hurricane season flooded and destroyed major areas of the country and displaced nearly hundreds of thousands of persons.

Haiti’s poor economic system and fragile infrastructure will face significant obstacles in the days, months, and years ahead. Many of the buildings and other structures in Haiti were not constructed with sufficient earthquake resistance. The New York Times reported as of Jan.28 that 20,000 commercial buildings and 225,000 residential building had collapsed or were severely damaged and need to be demolished.

To date, the death toll is unknown. Estimates range from 150,000 to 250,000 people dead. The numbers are even higher for people wounded, trapped, missing, displaced, or homeless. More than a dozen strong aftershocks of a 5.0 magnitude or larger have exacerbated the catastrophe, including a 5.9 magnitude quake that struck on Jan. 20. Domestic and international efforts continue to search for those still missing amid the rubble.

Beyond the loss of people and property that have occurred in Haiti, future fears include the potential losses to the Haitian culture. As CNN’s Soledad O’Brien reported, in Jacmel alone, Haiti lost at least 4,000 people, many of whom were involved in Haiti’s film festival, its music studios, and the paintings and masks that draw tourists and Haitians to this seaside town. The quake destroyed two buildings to the country’s only film school, and mountains of sheet music for the classes at Ecole Musique were scattered in the rubble. Art galleries and museums in Port-au-Prince were extensively damaged, including the city’s main gallery Centre d’Art and the Holy Trinity Cathedral, home to interior murals painted by some of the best-known Haitian painters of the 20th Century.

Government buildings damaged include the Palace of Justice, the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, and the National Palace, official home to Haitian Pres. Rene Preval. And according to Joel Jean-Pierre, Haiti’s Minister of Education, the educational system has suffered a total collapse. The three main universities in Haiti and about half of the country’s schools have been damaged by the quake.

While earthquake experts have warned for some time that the region may suffer a major earthquake, the sheer force of this quake destroyed even some of the strongest structures in Port-au-Prince, including the president’s palace. Haitians have remained resilient through previous catastrophes, as they have an unassailable strength of survival.

Much has been made of how individuals relied upon new technologies like Twitter and YouTube to broadcast locations and videos of survivors. Less reported were the successes of lower tech methods. Signal FM, a local Haitian radio station, struggled to remain on the air during and after the earthquake. Fortunately, the station’s studios and broadcasting tower withstood the quake intact. Additionally, the station had multiple generators to provide continued electricity. Quickly, Signal FM became one of the few places to which Haitians could turn for information and updates in the earthquake’s aftermath.

With the help of the U.S. and the rest of the international community, Haiti and its people will come back from this tragedy. Almost immediately after the quake struck, individuals and organizations mobilized in response to the quake. Organizations that are accepting donations for aid to Haiti include: Partners in Health, the Red Cross, the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, and the Yele Haiti Earthquake Fund. Get involved through donations and through sharing stories of survival in Haiti. While more than $560 million has been raised so far for Haiti earthquake relief, much more will be needed. The scope and magnitude of destruction in Haiti will require a long-term commitment. The rebuilding of a country begins.

Written by Derrick Alan Everett, LLM Staff Writer

On Tuesday, Jan. 19, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in a Massachusetts special election for the Senate seat of long-standing Sen. Ted Kennedy, who passed away last summer after a battle with cancer. Brown beat Coakley 52 percent to 47 percent. Brown’s win was a stunning upset for the Democrats who have held the seat for more than four decades. The last time Massachusetts elected a Republican to the Senate was in 1972.

In his victory speech, Brown remarked on his inconceivable triumph and proclaimed, “The independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken,” and “what happened in this election can happen all over America.” A major contributing cause for Brown’s rise in support was Brown’s YouTube moment, which occurred during a Senate debate between him and Coakley. On the question of whether he was willing to sit in Kennedy’s seat and block health care reform for years to come, Brown responded “with all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat; it’s the people’s seat.” Fearing the surge in Brown’s popularity, Pres. Barack Obama flew to Massachusetts to aid Coakley in her campaign; however, his efforts were ineffective.

Brown’s victory changes the party makeup in the U.S. Senate, giving Republicans 41 senators and Democrats 59 and dismantling the Democratic super majority. Now with only 59 senators, the Democrats are one vote short to end a Republican filibuster with a cloture vote. The consequences of this fact may spell trouble for the Democratic health care reform bill, and the Republican win in the blue state of Massachusetts may be a glimpse of things to come in the November midterm elections. Brown campaigned against the current health care bill in Congress, but has also expressed support for a health care bill created through compromise with the Republican minority.

Polls show Brown’s win represents an increasing discontent with Obama’s policies, specifically on health care reform as well as the general direction of the country. According to a Washington Post poll, the primary reasons voters gave for electing Brown include the economy, jobs and “the way Washington is working.” In addition, the poll showed only 43 percent of Massachusetts voters support the health care reform proposals in Congress, with 48 percent opposing it. The majority of voters who oppose health care reform voted for Brown. The poll also showed that 63 percent of Massachusetts voters think that the country is seriously off track, with two-thirds of these voters casting a ballot for Brown. This stands in contrast to a November 2008 poll showing Obama receiving 80 percent support from Massachusetts voters who viewed the nation as being on the wrong track.
Written by Alexander Hoffman, 3L Writer/Editor
Voters’ increasing shift away from Obama’s policies isn’t just a Massachusetts anomaly. Another poll, conducted by CNN, shows that 7 out of 10 Americans favor the loss of the Democratic Senate super majority. The survey also showed only 45 percent of Americans viewed a Democratic-controlled Congress as a good thing, down from 50 percent last June. While Brown’s victory in Massachusetts has been viewed as an event never thought possible, the Republican Party still has yet to fully recover from its losses in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Although the CNN poll shows that 44 percent of the public now view the Republican Party favorably, up from 36 percent last October, the GOP is still viewed less favorably than the Democratic Party, which has dropped in favorability to 46 percent from 53 percent.

Even without a super majority in the Senate and falling approval numbers, Obama has made it clear that he isn’t giving up on health care reform. While many political pundits are expecting a Republican resurgence in the November midterm elections, it remains to be seen whether GOP candidates can successfully look to Massachusetts and replicate Brown’s victory.

Written by Alexander Hoffman, 3L Writer/Editor

Body scanning machines are being installed in some of the busiest airports across the nation. The Transportation Security Administration began installing the full-body scanners after a passenger’s attempt to ignite explosives on a jetliner landing in Detroit. The man accused of the terrorist attack is 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from Nigeria. On Christmas Day, Abdulmutallab flew from Lagos, Nigeria, to Amsterdam before boarding on a flight to Detroit. According to officials, “He passed through a routine security check at the gate in Amsterdam.” It was later discovered that he was hiding “a small bag of PETN explosive powder and liquid detonator beneath his trousers.”

The high-tech security scanners could have prevented this incident according to Evert van Zwol, head of the Dutch Pilots Association. Pres. Barack Obama responded by urging improvements to the security systems as quickly as possible. While scanners will ensure stronger security by spotting explosives and weapons that cannot be sensed by metal detectors, by detecting weapons hidden between clothing and the body, the machines are limited in the number of weapons and bombs they can detect. Currently, the TSA has installed at least 40 scanners at around $160,000 each and has ordered for about 150 more scanners to be installed throughout the country.

The cost of these machines does seem to raise concern with regard to the national deficit; however, it seems air travelers are more concerned with privacy issues regarding the machines’ ability to see through clothing. The devices screen airline passengers without any physical contact. Passengers stand inside a portal with their arms raised as the screening device emits radio waves to produce a “three-dimensional image from the energy reflected back from the body.” The TSA ensures that the full-body images are displayed in a nearby room that is not visible to the public. The scanners transmit the body’s image in black and white and cannot “store, print or transmit any images they produce.” In addition, the security officers who view the images do not see the passengers nor can the officers assisting the passengers see the images. On the other hand, scanners produce clear and detailed images that reveal a person’s gender and body contour. In an attempt to protect people’s privacy, the TSA claims to blur passenger faces and delete images right after viewing.

While debates about health, budget and privacy continue to raise questions, the United States plans to continue installing scanners at a quick speed and is encouraging other countries to do the same. On the other hand, the European Union is trying to take thorough measures in addressing the issues surrounding the new security system before proceeding with widespread deployment. After the failed Christmas Day attack, Britain, France, Italy and the Netherlands have already consented to installing scanners at airport checkpoints despite the EU Parliament’s ongoing debates.
“Human beings have dignity and every measure has to be clarified first. Does it respect human dignity, does it respect privacy and does it respect health?” European Comm. Viviane Reding commented during hearings at the EU Parliament.

Written by Sally Derohanessian, 1L Staff Writer

On Nov. 5, tragedy struck at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, when U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a military psychiatrist, opened fire in a crowded facility, killing 13 people, 12 of them soldiers and one a civilian, and injuring 43 others. There has been debate as to whether or not this was a terrorist attack or simply a mass shooting. Many have also speculated that this tragedy could have been avoided due to clear warning signs based on Hasan’s behavior.

Hasan is a 39-year-old of Palestinian descent and is a practicing Muslim. Hasan was at Fort Hood base, because he was to be deployed to Afghanistan. Just before he opened fire, Hasan reportedly shouted out “Allahu Akbar,” which translates to “God is great.” After opening fire on the crowd, Hasan was subdued by a civilian police officer, who shot him, ending the attack. The weapons Hasan used were two handguns privately purchased.

According to a National Public Radio report, dated Nov 6, while in training to be a military psychiatrist, Hasan was often seen as cold and unfriendly. A psychiatrist, who had worked closely with him, stated that Hasan reportedly had always been upfront about being a Muslim and once gave an academic lecture to doctors on Islam. In the lecture, Hasan reportedly talked about the Koran and stated that those who did not believe in its teachings are condemned to hell, where their heads will be cut off and set on fire while burning oil is poured down their throats. In the presentation, Hasan also justified suicide bombings. This left an unsettling feeling in much of the audience.

On Nov. 8, The Associated Press reported that in the military, Hasan also exhibited suspicious behavior and often seemed conflicted about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fellow students had complained about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” such as arguments made that the War on Terror was a war against Islam, but some said fear of seeming discriminatory against a Muslim student prevented the filing of a formal written complaint.

The Associated Press also found that Hasan even sought counsel from an Islamic community leader on what to tell fellow Muslim soldiers who expressed misgivings about fighting those of the same faith. The Islamic community leader, Osman Danquah, told Hasan that as soldiers, they had volunteered to fight and that Muslims are already fighting against each other in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Danquah stated that his assurances didn’t seem to satisfy Hasan and found that there was something wrong with him. This also led Danquah to recommend the mosque to reject Hasan’s request to be a Muslim leader at Fort Hood.

Further, according to U.S. officials, there was evidence that Hasan had email correspondence with a radical Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who runs a website that promotes jihad against the United States. FBI officials had intercepted the emails, but did not open an investigation into Hasan’s exchange with al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki had also reportedly made contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers, while in San Diego. Many Congressional committees are assessing whether counterterrorism officials were negligent in failing to alert Army officials regarding the intercepted exchanges. Sen. Joe Lieberman, Conn., called the shooting a “homegrown terrorist attack,” and stated, “If Hasan was showing signs, saying to people that he had become an Islamist extremist, the U.S. Army has to have a zero tolerance.”

Currently, the Pentagon is conducting an investigation into the massacre and what could have been done to prevent it. Hasan is being held at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, where he is recovering from gunshot injuries. Hasan is facing a military trial and is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in one of the deadliest mass shootings on a United States military base.

Written by Alexander Hoffman, 3L Day Writer/Editor

Given that medical malpractice suits contribute so greatly to rising health care costs, President Barack Obama and Congress should consider medical liability litigation reforms as a key to health care reform.

Since 1975, the cost of medical malpractice lawsuits has increased at a rate of 12 percent annually. A 2006 Harvard School of Public Health study found that four out of 10 medical malpractice lawsuits filed in the United States each year were unsubstantiated. Malpractice litigation can be extremely expensive - and yet, it must be paid for. The costs are imposed on doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and ultimately, consumers.

Doctors’ fear of liability gives rise to superfluous medical procedures. “Defensive medicine” is the practice of diagnostic or therapeutic measures taken primarily as a safeguard against possible malpractice liability, and not to ensure wellness of the patient. The costs of these procedures contribute to rising costs of health care. A Massachusetts Medical Society survey published in November 2008 found that 83 percent of Massachusetts physicians practice defensive medicine out of fear of being sued. The increased cost of these defensive procedures adds $1.4 billion per year to health care costs in Massachusetts alone. PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimates that $240 billion is spent nationally on these unnecessary health expenditures.

A shortage of doctors is another enduring concern. President Obama advocates a preventative medicine regime as part of his goal to lower the costs of health care. But preventative medicine requires doctors, and the Association of American Medical Colleges reports a growing shortage of primary care physicians in the United States. Lawsuits are hurting the industry. Some doctors are going out of business or moving to states with more favorable tort systems

California’s Medical Injury Recovery & Compensation Act (MICRA) is an example of a lauded reform law that should be imitated at the federal level. Passed in 1975 in response to a medical liability crisis, MICRA limits noneconomic damages (i.e. subjective, non-monetary losses like pain and suffering) in medical malpractice cases to $250,000. The law also imposes a sliding scale on plaintiff’s attorney fees, capping fees at 40 percent of any recovery. The California Legislature ultimately stated goals are to reduce premiums, expand coverage, and stabilize health care delivery.

A study by the Rand Corporation found that MICRA reduced defendants’ liabilities by 30 percent; but, plaintiffs’ net recoveries are only 15 percent less than they would be without MICRA, offset by limits on attorney’s fees. The effect is that medical malpractice costs are shifting from defendants to plaintiffs, and then to plaintiffs’ counsel. This mechanism is likely to encourage malpractice attorneys to use stricter discretion when evaluating new claims, and discourage baseless lawsuits. Critics point out that plaintiffs with high-value non-economic damages will suffer unless they can also show high economic costs. The Rand report suggests that if this is indeed the case, a “carve out” provision would exempt exceptionally tragic cases, incentivizing attorneys to represent those plaintiffs.

Twenty-five other states have enacted reforms similar to MICRA, which include a reasonable limit on noneconomic recovery. The reforms seek to balance the interests of patients and healthcare providers, improving access to necessary care.

By reducing the number of groundless medical liability suits against healthcare providers, healthcare spending would decrease dramatically - as much as several hundred billion dollars per year, according to the PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimate. This money would be better spent in promoting access to health insurance coverage. It would also create a friendlier environment for the bright young doctors-to-be that we desperately need to care for our parents’ and our own aging generation in years to come.

Written by Natalie Wright, 3L Day Senior Staff Writer

With a Democratic majority, the Congressional debate on healthcare reform continues with revision, compromise, and vocal opposition. Despite the partisan split, a theoretical consensus persist: more Americans should have access to affordable healthcare. The Devil–and divide–is in the details.

The Senate’s current proposed plan would allocate in excess of 800 billion dollars over the next decade with the goals of providing universal healthcare to all Americans, regardless of their current health issues, and creating government regulated insurance exchanges for individuals unable to acquire healthcare coverage from their employers.

The public option, whereby the government would fund healthcare for individuals either unable to afford plans offered by private insurers or barred because of a preexisting condition, would not kick in until 2014, as currently proposed. Republicans prefer a market approach to incentivize states to adopt policies that would minimize the amount of citizens uninsured.

Proponents maintain that funds will be spent more effectively, and fees will be generated from drug, device, and insurance companies. Proposals also include increasing taxes on certain high-income workers receiving Medicare, and reducing payments for certain benefits covered by Medicare Advantage plans, but not covered by Medicare. Elective, non-reconstructive surgeries may even be taxed at 5%, generating an estimated 5 billion dollars over the initial ten-year period.
The Congressional Budget Office indicates that this plan will help reduce the deficit by savings to Medicare and in other areas, making the reform “revenue neutral or better.”

Do not expect passage of a healthcare reform plan, Obama’s top priority, to occur before the New Year. Pundits predict that politicians up for reelection will use the healthcare debate as a campaign platform for the approaching mid-term elections next year.
Republican leaders have made a series of “Common Sense” reform proposals, including tort reform, allowing small businesses to pool resources to provide employees insurance, and permitting insurance companies to sell insurance plans across state lines. Tort reform proposals include increasing barriers to punitive damages and limiting pain and suffering damages to $250,000 for malpractice suits. Pains and suffering limitations, as proposed, would include both physical and emotional suffering reward caps. The reduced risk of frivolous malpractice suits would decrease wasteful over-testing currently used by physicians to shield themselves from potential liability.

Pooling resources would ideally allow small businesses to spread risks, reduce costs, and pass on savings to employees. Business owners could construct their own policies and allow employees to subscribe on a take it or leave it basis.

Currently, individual states regulate the benefit packages health insurance providers offer to residents of their states. California law, for example, regulates heath insurance offered to Californians. Under the proposed alternative plan, the law of the state where the insurance company is based would govern the policy requirements for insurance offered to individuals in every other state. Insurance providers could then establish themselves in the states with the requirements that suit the policies they intend to offer. The bills proposed in both the House and the Senate contain “buyer beware” clauses requiring health insurance policies to contain clear notice to consumers that their state’s consumer protection laws do not apply.

The plan to allow insurance providers to sell policies across state lines, originally proposed to Congress in 2005, would allow for greater flexibility and competition among providers. Proponents argue that the competition will lower prices while replacing costly and undesirable services with healthcare packages consumers demand.
States currently mandate health insurance providers to offer plans with specified services. This is blamed for the rise of insurance premiums: citizens are required to purchase healthcare packages that offer more than they would consume. According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, such mandates have only a minimal impact on insurance premiums. Still, proponents of reform maintain that greater flexibility and relief from state mandates will allow customers to purchase only those benefit packages they desire.

Critics fear that this plan will create a “race to the bottom” in quality of services covered, resulting in cheap insurance payments and inadequate coverage. Consumer protection groups and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association criticize those who exploit this fear that providers will seek out states with little to no regulation. Choice of a state of incorporation provides a counterexample: although many corporations choose Delaware, this is definitely not a “race to the bottom” phenomenon.

There are proposals to establish a federally-mandated floor, requiring certain basic services to be offered in any policy. Proponents of the plan to sell polices across state lines argue that such fears are unfounded, since consumers will not chose to purchase a plan that does not offer the services they require.

The plan to allow healthcare insurance providers to sell policies across state lines, creating a more flexible market for healthcare plans, is seen as an alternative to government run healthcare - the Public Option. Republican National Committee Chairman, Michael Steele, opposes the Democrats bill claiming it “would impose a government-run healthcare experiment on America that increases premiums, increases taxes, cuts Medicare and allows for taxpayer-funded abortions.” In an apropos quip from The Daily Show’s John Stewart to Lou Dobbs, Stewart opines “[i]t feels like everyone that wants limited government, really just wants government limited to Republicans.”

Written by Ashton Inniss, 3L Senior Staff Writer

Jerry Brown, photo courtesy Thomas Hawke via flickr.

by Michael Joy, 2L

Although a year away, candidates and voters are preparing for the next California gubernatorial election. The Democratic primary could bring a lot of media attention and could be politically costly for the winner. The Republican primary is shaping up to be just as strenuous, except it may prove to be even more politically and financially costly than the Democratic primary.

The only Democratic candidate at the moment is current California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is expected to declare his candidacy soon. Although Brown has not declared his candidacy yet, he is ahead in all the polls, both against Democrats and Republicans. Brown brings a great deal of political experience to his campaign, having been governor from 1975-1983, a former Mayor of Oakland, and currently serving at California Attorney General. Brown’s reputation as an unconventional politician has won him supporters, but has also strengthened criticism against him.

The Democratic primary was going to be challenging for Brown, but his opponent, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, recently dropped out. Unless a new opponent mounts a campaign, it is likely that Brown will coast to the Democratic nomination. This heavily favors Brown because he will not have to spend much money in the primary and he will not be beaten up by his own party opponents. Nasty primary tactics between Steve Westly and Phil Angelides in the primary severely weakened Angelides in the last general election.

Republicans are offering three candidates for governor. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, former Congressman Tom Campbell, and current California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner are all vying for the Republican nomination. The three Republican candidates will be campaigning against the backdrop of an intensely unpopular Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Schwarzenegger problem might be a non-issue because the Republican base widely perceives the current governor to be a moderate rather than a true Republican.

Meg Whitman brings very strong business credentials, immense personal wealth, and popularity among Republicans to the race. She will be running during a still weak California economy, and her successful record as CEO of eBay will be a very strong point for her. Alternatively, Whitman brings no political experience to the race and has faced minor criticism for her lack of voting participation.

The second candidate for the Republicans, Tom Campbell, is competing with Whitman in early polling. Campbell brings experience as a former Congressman and experience representing the people of California. Although Campbell brings voter recognition, he is going to have to fight against Whitman and Poizner’s spending abilities in order to be competitive in the primary.

The third Republican candidate, Steve Poizner, brings his success as a business figure and current position in California politics to the race. Poizner also brings wealth to the campaign, which will allow him to go head-to-head against Whitman. He will have to overcome his low early polling numbers and will have to introduce himself to voters in order to be competitive.

The Republican primary, with three leading candidates, will be a difficult race. Two of the candidates, Whitman and Campbell, are polling closely. If the race heats up, it may become an endurance contest, which could be financially and politically expensive for the winner. Whitman holds the financial advantage compared to Campbell, but will have to fight against his experience to be successful.

Jerry Brown leads the polls against all current and potential candidates, Democratic and Republican. Brown will be campaigning in a state that is highly disapproving of the Democratic controlled state legislature, but just as disapproving of the Republican governor. If Brown runs unopposed in the Democratic primary, he will hold a large advantage in the general election because he can start his campaign for governor early, focusing on his Republican opponents. To keep the general election close, Republicans need to choose their candidate quickly, conserving financial and political resources.

by Alex Hoffman, 3L

In mid-September, both houses of the U.S. Congress voted to block any further federal funding to the community organization group, ACORN, after recent incriminating hidden-camera videos were released. ACORN, which is an acronym for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has claimed that the events in the videos are isolated incidents and do not represent the work of the community organization group as a whole.

The videos show two conservative activists, Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe, posing as a prostitute and a pimp, asking various ACORN representatives at several locations across the country for home loans and advice on starting a brothel for underage Salvadoran girls. In the first video, ACORN representatives at their Baltimore, Md., branch are shown telling Giles and O’Keefe how to obtain housing loans, hide the illegality of their prostitution ring and lie to the IRS by disguising the brothel as a reputable business. One ACORN member told them they could claim the underage girls as dependents and another told them to train the girls to “keep their mouth shut” to avoid exposing the prostitution ring.

The CEO and Chief Organizer of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, initially questioned the validity of the tapes, claiming they were “doctored” and even accused the filmmakers that it was a race-based attempt to bring down the organization. She also initially played down the video as an example of an isolated incident, until more videos were released showing the same tactics used at other ACORN branches with similar results. Employees featured in the videos have since been fired.

Republicans in Congress have been the main force behind the push to investigate ACORN after some members of the group were found to have submitted false voter registration forms with names like “Mickey Mouse,” “Mary Poppins” and “Dick Tracy” during the 2008 president election. Rep. Steve King, (state), stated, “Taxpayers should be outraged that their money has gone to an organization that, in addition to facing charges of voter fraud and tax violations, is willing to facilitate prostitution.”

The second-highest-ranking Republican in the House, Rep. Eric Cantor, (state), stated, “ACORN has violated serious federal laws, and today the House voted to ensure that taxpayer dollars would no longer be used to fund this corrupt organization.”

The House of Representatives vote of 345 to 75 to prohibit federal funding to ACORN was largely bipartisan, although the 75 members who voted against it were Democrats. One opponent, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, NY, stated the bill was “in blatant violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder.” The Senate’s bill to deny funding for ACORN was also largely bipartisan with 83 to 7 voting to deny further housing and community grant funding to the organization.

Pres. Barack Obama weighed in on the controversy, stating that what the video purported to show “was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated,” but also stated that “this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something [he’s] paying a lot of attention to.” ACORN has received approximately $53 million in tax dollars since 1994.