I won’t bother commenting on the WSJ’s editorial on President Biden’s claims that 1) the COVID-19 pandemic is over and 2) there is a COVID-19 emergency. Alternatively, I’ll just point out that maintaining emergencies as long as possible has become a very bad habit of the federal government.
It reminds me of the late Mayor Daley’s angry response to the charge that the Chicago Police had created the disorder that made the 1968 Democratic convention one for the record books: “The Chicago Police were not there to create disorder; they were there to preserve disorder”.
Renewing the COVID 19 emergency Act is simply a tool to continue an authoritarian type of power, undiluted by any legislative, congressional interference. Newsom has done the same thing here in CA. It just shows that once someone has such power it’s hard to let it go – “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.â€
It’s not just the COVID-19 emergency and it’s not just Democratic presidents. The federal government has declared a whole series of emergencies and continued them long past the time they were emergent. The issues are human nature and the rule of law rather than which side of the aisle you sit on.
The issues are human nature and the rule of law rather than which side of the aisle you sit on.
Dave, I only wish that were true. However, these days, in this world, so much seems to be determined not only by extreme politics but also by which side of the aisle you sit on. Nonetheless, for a growing number of people, it’s the democrat party who is thought to be the culprit dragging us in a direction most Americans don’t want to go, regardless of their party affiliation. Consequently, there appear to be more cross-overs, compelled by reasons expressed by a liberal writer, Sasha Stone, in the link below:
https://sashastone.substack.com/p/meet-the-temporary-republicans
Jan, the chief barrier to partisan political framings is simple:
neither side is willing to accept the role of scapegoat.
This makes partisan finger-pointing a non-starter, at least from a practical problem-solving point of view.
My suggestion: even if your personally preferred partisan framing is CORRECT on all points, it cannot possibly WORK unless it is framed in mutually acceptable language. Are you up for the challenge?
I submit that this sort of reframing is a skill for which we all need more practice. Myself included!
It certainly isn’t taught in schools anymore.
I don’t think you’re following me, Jan. It’s not that Democratic politicians are evil and Republican politicians are good or vice versa. It’s that all politicians are human and seeking to retain power once you have it is human.
The only solution is to constrain how much power you’re willing to grant politicians and we don’t seem to be willing to do that.
Overthinking this. Maintaining the emergency status lets hospitals be more flexible about how they use staffing and facilities. It allows for continued use of telehealth and a number of other provisions. IOW, it allows hospitals to do a lot of stuff if THEY WANT and IF THEY NEED. No idea how that turns into authoritarian. Doesnt really force anyone to do anything of which I am aware but I am sure you have lots of examples and will be glad to share them. (We are still having 300-400 people a day die and we dont know yet if there will be another fall surge.)
I guess they could go ahead and arbitrarily make those changes permanent but that seems more authoritarian to me. Anyway, cant wait to see the stuff we are being forced to do. I think we are in the endemic stage and not pandemic but its still our first go round with this virus so who knows what happens this fall.
Steve
I would say if the staffing flexibility, telehealth, etc are useful outside of an emergency — then Congress should pass a law to enable that.
In the end, its mostly Congress’ fault and a little bit of the Supreme Court in INS vs Chandra.
Congress shouldn’t delegate such broad powers to the executive without defined timelines which require periodic Congressional approval.
And the Supreme Court should have understood when it stuck down so called “Congressional Vetoes” it altered the balance between executive and congressional powers in a series of laws that would never have passed Congress as the Courts interpret them today (that the executive can exercise all these delegated powers without the possibility of Congressional Vetos).
FYI — the local McDonald’s playground just reopened after 2.5 years being closed. COVID really is over as an emergency.
The impediments to telehealth are the insurance companies and physicians. I suspect it’s one pandemic response that will remain with us.
So just as Thought no one is offering anything that is actually bad about the covid emergency stuff, you just dont like the word emergency. Since I do this for a living I am well aware fo the good stuff it lets us do. I might not be aware of any bad stuff it does so if someone knows they can add it in but I am betting people would have to go look it up.
“I would say if the staffing flexibility, telehealth, etc are useful outside of an emergency — then Congress should pass a law to enable that.”
Maybe, maybe not. Take telehealth as an example. As Dave noted a lot of the resistance to this has been insurance companies. (Lot less resistance from docs now that they have tried it.) The insurance companies do have a point in that there is a lot of potential for abuse. It is a perfect set up for grifters and you can make tons of easy money doing it. Look at the guys selling Ivermectin and HCQ. You could be under sanctions by one or more states for poor medical care or fraud running over several years and still do telehealth, again as we saw with the people selling the above two drugs. Since medicine is largely controlled at the state level it may be more appropriate for the individual states to address this issue.
Still, it has been helpful for people trying to provide needed care. A bit of grifting has been a small price to pay from my POV. Keeping these in place until see if we have a wave this fall makes sense to me as the upsides outweigh the downsides, other than some people unhappy because ti has the word emergency in it.
Steve
The issue is one of process, steve. The declaration of something as an emergency allows the executive to sidestep normal procedures.
It might be true that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. Unfortunately, there is no known way of ensuring benevolence. At least from a philosophical standpoint, our approach has been to limit the reach of government and follow processes. That’s what’s meant by “the rule of law”. That’s why we have processes in place and those are the processes sidestepped by an emergency declaration.
“Maintaining the emergency status lets hospitals be more flexible about how they use staffing and facilities. It allows for continued use of telehealth and a number of other provisions. ”
I’m surprised that requires an emergency declaration from the federal government. It seems to me hospitals should have that flexibility as standard. What prevents use of telehealth absent a declared federal emergency?
Oh, never mind, I see from reading the rest of the comments it’s primarily about money.
I suppose the relevant question is: What are the proper criteria for ending the emergency? No one seems to know. It’s like Justice Potter’s view on pornography.
I tend to think extending the emergency is mostly political – it allows Title 42 and several other things to continue past the mid-terms.
I think Title 42 is separate from terms affecting hospitals but has been along time since I read it.
Mostly political? In a way. Suppose we stop it right now. Then we get another surge but PA has elected Matriano, a covid truther. I would like to have the emergency provisions back but I think we can be pretty sure he wouldn’t allow it on the state level. Also, remember that the measures dont require me to do anything. If we dont want to do telehealth we dont have to do it. We dont have to flex our staff. Unless there are some downsides I dont know and haven’t listed, no one else seems to know any, risk/reward is pretty good.
When should we stop it? I would really like it if they actually asked us, meaning the medical community, when it should go away. For my part if we make it through this fall without a surge, that would be the first without one, I am happy ending it.
Steve
Steve,
I don’t have my hopes up, but ideally we should see some serious reforms to our preexisting SOP for health care and many other areas and for many reasons, including overuse of emergency executive authority.
I am mixed. I have some hopes for telehealth. Now that docs have had it so long they are going to fuss about losing it. If we had only had it for a short while people wouldn’t care. I am more skeptical about being able to use docs wherever we need. We hospitals on both sides of the state line. I dont see states giving up the power to decide who works where once the emergency power is gone. Telehealth over state lines wont get much easier either.
Steve