Are we like the People of Panem?

For those of you with a PR day job, you must understand this sentiment: I come home from a long day at work and bask in the freedom to browse the internet for the fluffy stuff. I spend my 9-5 day staying up to date on hospital policy, clinical care, and research studies. In the evening, I ride the social wave. Interestingly, more often than not, my evening reads connect back directly to my day job. Several weeks ago, the hot topics on the internet were: the #HungerGames and #HealthCareReform.

Ever since then, I've been itching to dig into the on-going health care debate, especially after listening to a very compelling piece that NPR did several weeks ago on the second day of Obamacare hearings for the US Supreme Court. So for a moment, let's talk universal health care reform and then maybe we can get to the Hunger Games. 

I understand the reason for all of the hype. It's a big deal for the government to try to mandate something like health care, passing a law like this would set an impressive legal precedent. Even if one argues that the mandate would not infringe upon the constitutional rights of American citizens (which it could, the Supreme Court Justices have yet to determine this), it could also open the door to future legislation that crosses farther over this line. But here lies the problem: health care is essential to life and not everyone can afford it. Does everyone deserve it? I think most would agree that the answer is yes, but there are so many other factors at play here that add to the complexity of the issue.  The largest of which, I think, is freedom of choice. 

What's more interesting to me at the moment, is how the American public is reacting to the Supreme Court Hearings. So my thought is, let's take it to the people and see what they have to say via Twitter: 

@Vision365 @darbus69 it is your RIGHT to work and pursue thosethings you want, such as healthcare. I choose not to buy insurance.

Good point. RT “@BorowitzReport: Americans should not be forcedto spend money on healthcare that they could be spending onguns.”

RT @KateClinton: Shouldn't Supreme Court judges who havehealthcare recuse themselves from this case?

Dumb tweet of the day MT @Jimi_We If SCOTUS kills ACA allAmericans should refuse to provide healthcare for congressmenand SCOTUS.

Hands off my Healthcare! We need #Obamacare!

Why don't we apply successful principles of Internet (transparency, choice) to health care? http://bit.ly/GZ7GoR 

Healthcare going down? Back 2 millions being uninsured. RSupremes makg that the American way? Canucks think we're nuts! 


So single-payer healthcare not only would have been cheaper & more equitable, but it also would have been more legally resilient.

Read the above (just a small sampling of one night's discussion on Twitter). To sum it all up: people are uneasy about change. That's old news, but, is it just the element of change that poses a threat? No, people are concerned about putting their own health in jeopardy. For this reason, we have been teetering on the edge of health care reform. We want to take the plunge, but we are scared of the consequences.

The fight over health care reform is just like the Hunger Games. The government has nurtured a society that promotes the Games (universal health care) and encourages tributes to fight to the death (provokes citizens to a place where they feel trapped); without freedom of choice. Each tribute, just like each American citizen, wants the chance to choose life (or medical care), without having to take it from their friends and peers. Therein lies the problem: when the government takes away their choice, they feel forced to protect themselves and they become animals - caring only for their personal well-being. It's survival of the fittest. They no longer trust the men and women in power.

Americans are caught between a rock and a hard place. Altruism is a strong force within democracy and they want to provide medical care for everyone, but they do not trust #Obamacare. People are too afraid that, like the Hunger Games,  the system is rigged; that when they really do get very sick, they won't get the timely, high standard of care that they need and feel that they deserve. And it may be a matter of life or death. Acts of kindness and universal health care may risk the loss of their own quality care. Like so many things in life, it all boils down to self preservation, as the Tweets above show. People are suspicious. Just like in Panem, they do not trust the government to make these decisions; this can cause a great deal of unrest and unhappiness in the nation. 

In MA, we pay a high percentage of our annual salary to healthcare benefits, as the result of the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Law (2006), implemented by Mitt Romney during his time as governor. For many single workers, like myself, this translates to 1/3 of my monthly pay check - a high price to pay. I am rarely sick enough to need medical attention, so this number does feels unjust.

I understand the resentment towards #Obamacare. However, this is no excuse for neglecting those who need medical attention. So what do we do? What if Americans want both free choice and universal health care? Can we have our cake and eat it too, or is this one big Catch 22?

Mental Retardation: Can it Save you from Death Row?

Washington, D.C. (6/3/2009) -- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Court of Appeals in the case, Bobby, Warden v. Bies, Monday, saying that Bies’s claim of violation of the Double Jeopardy clause was invalid because he was never acquitted and then re-convicted after his 1992 sentence.

            Michael Bies has been sitting in jail at the Ohio State Penitentiary for the past 17 years, while his murder case traveled through the United States Court system in Bies’s attempts to abdicate his death sentence by claiming his own mental retardation.

            Bies, along with an accomplice, Darryl Gumm, abducted 10 year-old Aaron Raines from a park in Lower Price Hill. Police found Raines’s body later that evening in the basement of an abandoned building.

            Coincidentally, shortly after Bies’s case was first heard back in 1992, another case, Atkins v. Virginia, was settled that established a precedent barring the execution of mentally retarded offenders. At the time of Bies’s hearing, his mental capacity was a concern, but the jury decided that it was entitled to some weight, however, they resolved that the mitigating factors did not outweigh the crime’s brutality, and so for this reason, the verdict was not reversed.

            Bies attempted to question all previous courts’ decisions in his recent oral argument before the Supreme Court on April 27, 2009. He claimed that his mental capacity was, in fact, a contributing factor in the case. For this reason, Bies immediately raced to the next level of judicial appeal, following the courts’ condemning sentence. He continued to run his case from court to court after each unsatisfactory outcome.

            In addition to reversing the Sixth Court of Appeal’s ruling, The Supreme Court stated that Bies’s use of the Double Jeopardy clause was inappropriate and his case was basically unfit for the Supreme Court. Point blank: Bies was wasting the Supreme Court’s time.

            “The decision invites unwarranted federal interference in state-court proceedings.  Immediately after the state post-conviction court denied his motion for summary judgment, Bies raced to federal court under the cloak of double jeopardy, thereby frustrating any progress in that proceeding or development of the record on the Atkins issue,” said Justice Ginsburg.

            Justice Ginsburg read the verdict, which interestingly enough, did not directly reference Bies’s mental state of health or question the Ohio courts’ procedure for testing degrees of mental retardation.

             The court said that if Bies wished to address this issue, he would have to go back to square one and appeal to the District Court. The Supreme Court felt that this was not a necessary factor in its determination of whether Bies was victimized under the Double Jeopardy clause.

            The clause states that once a capital defendant is “acquitted” based on findings establishing entitlement to a life sentence, the Double Jeopardy clause bars any renewed inquiry into Bies’s mental capacity.

            After careful consideration, the United States Supreme Court deemed Bies’s case inappropriate for this appeal and the Double Jeopardy clause inconsequential to the sentence.

            Justice Ginsburg read the courts’ decision in a mumbled tone, reflecting the level of enthusiasm the court felt for the case.

            She said that “First, Bies was not ‘twice put in jeopardy,’ He was sentenced to death, and Ohio sought no further prosecution or punishment.” The court viewed Bies’s plea as a mere excuse, saying that Bies had put himself in the position of Double Jeopardy voluntarily by choosing to appeal his case multiple times.

            Justice Ginsburg said, “Instead of ‘serial prosecutions’ by the government, this case involves ‘serial efforts’ by the defendant to vacate his capital sentence.” The Supreme Court was not going to let Bies off the hook, wisely noting that their decision (as is often the case) could create a snowball effect for criminals waiting on death row.

            The Supreme Court added, “The decision potentially has ramifications for all types of criminal cases.  The Sixth Circuit has allowed an individual who has neither been acquitted of a crime, nor subjected to a second prosecution, to invoke the Double Jeopardy.” The fear is that, now, after Bies’s appeal made it to the top and was heard by the highest court in the United States, other felons will attempt to invoke the Double Jeopardy clause in the hopes that their cases will also be reconsidered.

             Ginsburg spoke for the court when she concluded that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals made a grave mistake when, along with its consideration of the Double Jeopardy. It failed to independently reassess the case evidence. It also neglected to pay detailed attention to Bies’s level of mental retardation over the past two decades.

            Both the Ohio State Court of Appeals and the Ohio State Supreme Court originally deemed Bies’s mild to borderline mental retardation as mitigating factors, but not significant when compared with the aggravating circumstances. The degree of retardation was never reconsidered over the course of deliberations.

            Therefore, in its Monday verdict, The United States Supreme Court reestablished Bies’s conviction based on its decision that Bies’s case did not fall under the umbrella of the Double Jeopardy clause, and subsequently, the U.S. would not protect him from capital punishment.

            The Supreme Court acknowledged that with the Atkins determination to uphold the Eighth Amendment rights of offenders, the validity and justice of Bies’s conviction was questionable. To the defendant, the death sentence seemed in direct contradiction to the recent legislation.

             However, both the Ohio Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court affirmed Bies’s conviction, based on their decision that the mitigating circumstances were factors in the case, but did not outweigh the nature and severity of the crime.  

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu