It's perhaps no secret

that American politics, of late, has become increasingly dysfunctional, increasingly divisive with entrenched positions on both the left and the right.   The administration of Obama has been stymied at every turn, and there is a telling line in one of the Post's stories this morning that labeled the republican dominated congress hypocritical welfare queens -- taking government benefits while refusing to do their constitutionally mandated job.  It is, for example, the president's job to appoint federal judges, the congressional job to either affirm or reject those appointments.  We know what is happening with Obama's supreme court nominee.  Let's face it.  I'm sure he could have found a judge more staunchly progressive in his orientation, but he chose to nominate someone that even the republicans couldn't object to -- except, of course, they did -- and, yes, in doing so, like good union members, went on strike, refusing to do their (I keep saying) constitutionally mandated job.

At some level, of course, it's the fox news syllogism -- everything Obama does is wrong, he is attempting to appoint X, ipso facto presto the appointment of X is wrong.  Nothing will move in this climate, and it goes from top to bottom.  One of toss off lines in the article reads "republicans may be trying to make the federal government as dysfunctional as possible under President Obama," and there may be some truthiness in this.  I wouldn't vote for Mike Simpson, my republican congressman, who basically blew me off, in part because I won't fit his stereotype of one "hurt" by Obamacare.  I do fall into the category of one "hurt" by Obamacare, but my "hurt" results, not from the structure of the law, but from the state exchange's inability to do their job.  Obamacare COULD work just fine, thank you very much, and I COULD have health insurance of a sort, thank you very much, but it ISN'T working because the state and federal legislators simply don't care that it isn't working, are actually I'm sure pleased that it isn't working, even though I strong suspect that it's not working because they are simply not fulfilling their obligations under the law.

Back in the day, our popular state governor, Butch Otter, hoped to push through the Idaho legislature what is referred to as "nullification."  It is, on a point by point basis, the principle of "succession."  If the Attorney General of the state feels that a law is "invasive," they may simply "succeed" from that law.  Among many other things, the Attorney General is

to seek in juncture and any other appropriate relief as expeditiously as possible to preserve the rights and property of the residents of the state of Idaho, and to defend as necessary the state of Idaho, its officials, employees, and agents in the event that any law or regulation violating the public policy set forth in the Idaho health freedom act, chapter 90, title 39, Idaho Code, is enacted by any government, subdivision or agency thereof.

The "public policy" set forth is this:

It is hereby declared that the public policy of the state of Idaho, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable right of liberty, is that every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.

OK, such a statement would be consistent for a libertarian governor.  In principle, who could disagree with liberty?  Well, here's what it REALLY means.  The state of Idaho has set its people free from the any government sanctioned encroachments on their freedom to choose their means of providing health care for themselves.  If the people are free, the governments only obligation is to do nothing, except resist the attempts on the part of the government to do anything.  Part of this was reaction against the "insurance mandate" -- the provision of the law that made it obligatory that everyone MUST have insurance or face legal tax penalties.  It's the notion that, by Gosh, if a person doesn't WANT to have insurance, they shouldn't be mandated by the federal government to GET insurance.

All of this is well and good, but here's the kicker.  The person who doesn't get insurance affects me as the person who does get insurance.  The arguments for this are familiar, but essentially it comes down to two things.

First, the provision that a person can't be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions.  Health insurance companies really don't want to insure sick people who will make claims.  They want to insure healthy people who don't make claims.  Consequently, if there is no provision that prohibits denial for pre-existing conditions, health insurance companies will raise individual rates or drop those  people who make claims.  We're familiar with this from our automobile insurance.  Insurance companies don't want to insure people who have lots of accidents.  They want to insure people who have no accidents who don't make claims.  If you have accidents, insurance companies raise individual rates or drop those people who make claims.  There is, however, an ethical difference of reasonable responsibility.  It is reasonable to hold people ethically responsible for their accidents, less reasonable to hold them responsible for their diseases -- not entirely, of course, because there are "lifestyle diseases" linking, for example, lung cancer and smoking, heart attacks and too much McDonalds, et cetera.  For the most part, however, people can't be held responsible for their diseases., and we tend to feel that dropping the cancer patient because they are "too expensive" is egregious.

Second, if insurance companies can't drop people who make claims, then they need to mitigate their risk.  If insurance companies must extend insurance to those who demand it, then only the sick would demand it.  People would not pay the premiums if there were little perceived risk of making claims, so the more rational among us would hold off getting insurance until we "needed" it.  Such behavior would, of course, quickly bankrupt the insurance companies.  If people are "free to choose or decline any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty," then, of course, the more rational of us would "decline health care services" and hold off on insurance premium payments until we "needed" it, particularly if we cannot be denied insurance.  Such behavior would, of course, quickly bankrupt the insurance companies.   If people are complete free to choose or decline services, then the insurance companies too must be free to give or decline services.  It's only fair.

And so, in a world of perfect "liberty," either the insurance companies or the populace can behave egregiously.  Some of this is hidden by employer based insurance, which mitigates the risk by equipping all employees across a wider employee pool to have insurance, but one has to ask how much "liberty" an employee has in choosing his "health care."  Of course, in those states where unions have some sway, employees can bargain for health care, but Idaho is a "right to work" state which effectively also nullifies most attempts at collective bargaining.  Outside of collective bargaining, health insurance is an employer's, not an employee's decision, and employers will choose plans that are in their own, not necessarily in their employees' interests.

Despite the high minded rhetoric of nullification, it was essentially just a ploy to remove any obligation on the part of government to do anything, which in turn simply retains the status quo.  We should ask who benefits from the status quo, but I have railed on that enough.  For those not covered by "employer based" insurance, either because we are self-employed or under-employed, in a world of perfect liberty and "market based solutions," if we are to have health insurance at all we must (1) not need it at all when we sign up, and (2) be willing to pay upwards of 10K per year for insurance with deductibles of over 5K.   Such liberty, if we are to have health insurance at all, puts about 25% of the median income into the pockets of the insurance providers. Suffice it to say that, under the status quo, one didn't see the profit margins of the health insurance providers suffering, but we did see hundreds of thousand of people without insurance suffering.  Obamacare helped, however marginally, to address that issue.  It is a perfectly rational function of government to set such "compromises"  on liberty into law, and that, of course, includes the federal government.  The republican dominated supreme court even recognized this function of government.  

There is, however, the other path to "nullification," which is, as was suggested above, do what you are required to do, but do it as half-heartedly, as poorly as possible, which seems to be the case in many republican dominated states like Idaho.   Any libertarian approach to government, despite the high minded infusion of Ayn Rand philosophy, only supports the existing power structures within the status quo.  If the government of the state is not obligated to do anything, except perhaps resist the obligation to do anything, then they are indeed welfare queens, drawing a government salary to do absolutely nothing.