Medicaid and the Meddlesome Meddlers

It is universally recognized—at least by those with a lick sense—that a man’s stomach, like the rest of his insides, is his concern. But in these latter days, when the noble art of government consists chiefly of meddling in the affairs of others, the question of whom a man (or woman, or anyone sufficiently afflicted with the need for medical attention) may see for their doctoring has become a matter for the courts, rather than common sense.

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, a man presumably elected to keep the peace and maintain the dignity of the law, now finds himself in a tussle along

with no fewer than 17 other state attorneys general over a simple proposition: whether those who rely upon Medicaid shall be permitted to decide for themselves which physician, nurse, or other sawbones they might employ to probe, poke, and prescribe upon their ailments.

The trouble began in South Carolina, where the governor, exercising that peculiar instinct for interference that afflicts all men in office, sought to bar Medicaid funds from traveling in the direction of certain providers—chiefly those with an association of a particular kind of doctoring that stirs up the righteous indignation of politicians with idle hands. Lower courts, perhaps briefly overtaken by an unusual bout of reason, ruled that such a maneuver was illegal, affirming the long-standing principle that choices in healthcare should be an individual desire rather than the whims of those in power.

But because no absurdity in this nation can be left untested before the highest tribunal in the land, the case has now made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court on April 2, where justices will take a break from their usual business of bewildering the citizenry with conflicting interpretations of the Constitution to determine whether 791,000 Nevadans and untold others across the republic shall continue to enjoy their current freedom of choice or get conscripted into whatever arrangement suits the reigning political mood.

Attorney General Ford, for his part, insists that the “free choice of provider” rule is essential, not merely as a matter of principle but as a means of ensuring access to necessary medical care. His opponents, no doubt, will argue otherwise, and the great machinery of law grinds on, converting simple rights into complicated battles, leaving the average citizen to wonder if he dares sneeze without first consulting a judge.