The following article elucidates the cited issues challenging the constitutionality of the Obamacare legislation and provides supportive legal history/cases bolstering this position. His argument is quite cogent and may serve as an appetizer for the argued positions when the States’ case is ultimately heard by the Supreme Court.
Importantly, this case can be considered to be a watershed one that can serve to vanquish and turn back the tide of ever expanding federal government insinuation and encroachment into our daily activities. Thus, if it is struck down by the Supreme Court, this defeat may very well be the Waterloo of the Progressive agenda.
ObamaCare: The 28th Amendment?
Roger D. Luchs April 17, 2011
ObamaCare is under assault, and properly so, because it tramples on enumerated constitutional rights of individuals and the states. Given President Obama's predilection, it must also be viewed as his most aggressive effort to date to recast the Constitution to empower the Federal government to inject itself into areas of everyday life from which it has been fenced off since its inception.
In a 2001 interview, Obama expressed frustration that the Constitution was framed as a "limiting" document rather than an "empowering" document. He understands that there is simply no prospect of amending it to bestow on Congress and him substantially broader authority to regulate broad sectors of the private economy. His sole option, then, is to convince the public that 225 years of constitutional jurisprudence is wrong or outdated.
ObamaCare is his opening salvo for making his case. No doubt there are more than a few liberal judges who will back him up. Some have already ruled in Obama's favor. If Obama succeeds even in only small part in recasting the Constitution as transferring powers to the central government beyond those expressly identified therein, then, to Obama and his liberal allies, it will be seen, to borrow a phrase, as "the end of the beginning" rather than "the beginning of the end."
Obama knows better, of course, which is why he said what he did in his 2001 interview. He can't change history, as much as he'd like to try, so he hopes to erase it from people's memories so over time, it is replaced with "progressive" reading of the Constitution. Facts, however, are stubborn things.
The colonies ceded to the newly-established Federal government only those powers they agreed among themselves would benefit the separate states, collectively. The Tenth Amendment reserved to the states those many powers not expressly ceded. The Bill of Rights was adopted to ensure that the Federal government could not infringe on the liberties the Revolution was fought to restore and preserve. Citizens of the colonies, and later of the territories, agreed to this arrangement with the understanding that the states and the Federal government would honor what was a set of covenants among them, which all agreed to honor so the nation would succeed. The Civil War was fought, in part, because to the Southern states, the North, when it elected Lincoln, signaled its willingness to violate that compact, by changing one of the key terms to which it had agreed to obtain Southern participation in the union. The Civil War, once concluded, was followed by several amendments which extended the reach of the Bill of Rights to state governments.
Though the Civil War brought forth a "new nation," by destroying the institution of slavery, and causing the amendment of the Constitution to protect freedoms of newly-liberated citizens, in all other respects, it reverted to what it was originally intended to be, i.e., a compact that ceded to the Federal government only those powers that would enable the nation to take on the character of a unified assemblage of willing actors. Although in the New Deal, its powers were broadened, neither Roosevelt nor succeeding presidents sought to recast the fundamental nature of the Constitution.
Those states which have already challenged ObamaCare have focused, in part, on the Tenth Amendment's preservation of state power over those realms of governance and regulation not expressly ceded to the Federal government. Historically, each state has exercised sovereign authority over the conduct of the insurance business within its borders. Although the Supreme Court ruled in 1944 that certain aspects of the insurance business were subject to the Commerce Clause and, therefore, the sovereignty of the states to regulate insurance within their respected borders could be preempted by Congress, in its regulation of interstate commerce, Congress rebelled. It overrode the Court's ruling, by enacting legislation reaffirming the sovereignty of the states over the insurance business, except as specified in the statute.[1] Absent a change in that law, then, the President's ability to infringe upon and override state sovereignty over insurance business conducted within the states' respective borders is minimal. ObamaCare, nevertheless, includes several mandates to insurers which arguably exceed the Federal government's powers to regulate insurance. However, those pale in comparison to the individual mandate.
It is that mandate that most clearly signals Obama's intent to "rewrite" the Constitution to dispense with its fundamental character. The mandate implicates the Bill of Rights' guarantee that persons may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Obama, in this regard, must be creative, because his mandate infringes upon the same right of privacy liberals fought for years to establish, in order to afford women a constitutional right to abortion. It seems self-evident that if that right inhibits the Federal and state governments from intruding upon a woman's choice, then it also protects women, and men, from government interference in their choices affecting their personal physical and mental well-being.
ObamaCare's guiding principle, however, is not paternalism. It is about the government's power to identify "public uses," as contemplated by the Fifth Amendment, and then compel unwilling individuals to engage in conduct that would, in the government's view, advance such uses. Requiring someone to buy health insurance from a private insurer is no different, in kind, from forcing New London, Connecticut property owners to sell their land to a private development authority established by the city, so that it could devote that property to more "productive" uses.[2] In the case of ObamaCare, the "public use" contemplated is a Federally- controlled, all encompassing healthcare system that would compel the citizenry to purchase insurance, to facilitate the government's exercise of control over how they make use of the healthcare system, which comprises about 16% of the private economy. It is a means to achieving a Federally-prescribed end.
However unjust the circumstances in Ms. Kelo's case, at least the Fifth Amendment ensured that she would receive "just compensation". The Constitution expressly recognizes the doctrine of eminent domain, though that is an ancient doctrine founded on the principle that real property belongs to its owners, and they may not be compelled by government to part with it, except under limited circumstances, and for a fair price.
Anyone forced to buy health insurance will also be compelled to part with private property, i.e., private wealth, but unlike in Kelo, what he receives in return is what the government instructs him to receive, i.e. insurance from a private insurer, the content of which will be regulated, to some extent, by the Federal government. It is fair to ask, if the Constitution required amendment to authorize a Federal income tax which taxpayers must pay to avoid punishment, why should an amendment not also be a prerequisite to the implementation of ObamaCare?
If there is any doubt about government's power to compel ordinary citizens to engage in conduct mandated by the Federal government, one need only look at Supreme Court precedent on the constitutionality of Federal rent control statutes to allay such doubt. Rent control, and its intersection with Constitutional rights, was taken up in challenges to rent control statutes enacted in World War I and World War II. In two precedential decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that the laws were constitutional, because they were adopted as temporary measures, enacted by Congress in the exercise of its police power, to meet the exigencies of the pending wars.
In its decisions, the Court, both implicitly and explicitly, focused on provisions in each statute that carved out an exception for property owners who wanted to remove their properties from the rental market. Each statute reserved to this right to landlords, even if they did so solely to avoid being subjected to Federal regulation. In the decision upholding the World War I statute, Justice Holmes, writing for the majority, commented that "there comes a point at which the police power ceases and leaves only that of eminent domain."[3] Applying this same reasoning to ObamaCare, anyone forced to purchase health insurance will find himself entangled in the Federal regulatory scheme that will accompany that law's implementation, but, unlike government-imposed rent control, without any viable way to escape participation.
It is no answer that ObamaCare offers the uninsured a choice, i.e. the option to pay a fine in lieu of mandated health insurance. Under the doctrine of eminent domain, there is no "option" to pay a fine in lieu of selling one's property to the government, but the government must pay the property owner the value of his property and the property owner may use that payment as he wishes. Under ObamaCare, the government will pay the involuntary purchaser nothing in exchange for forcing him to buy health insurance. The uninsured's choice, then, falls somewhere between Scylla and Charybdis.
Beyond this, the Eighth Amendment, which bars "cruel and unusual punishments," contains a separate provision which raises an additional doubts about ObamaCare's constitutionality. That provision prohibits government from imposing "excessive fines." This language was included to prevent the arbitrary use of what in feudal times were known as amercements, employed by the crown to punish those who offended the king, or violated the king's law. Amercements had sometimes been used to ruin people financially. Because ObamaCare's fines are intended as punishment for those who refuse to buy health insurance, they too, may be excessive, at least in some instances. Absent a binding court ruling in which it is held that the statutory fines may be imposed uniformly, they are ostensibly subject to review on a case by case basis. It is doubtful that the blanket imposition of more than a token fine without regard to each person's circumstances can withstand judicial scrutiny, except, of course, by liberal judges who are indifferent to the merits of challenges to ObamaCare's constitutionality.
To Obama and his fellow "progressives", it is too much to ask that the compact upon which the nation was founded should stand in their way. The Administration and the political movement it represents are intent on changing the rules of the game for all times, and not just to legitimize ObamaCare. If they succeed, over two centuries of jurisprudence consistent with the Founders' intent will be replaced by a new jurisprudence that leaves the Constitution, as drafted and originally adopted, just dust in the wind. Over generations, any understanding of the framers' original intent will gradually fade into the background.
But properly and aggressively challenged, ObamaCare could become this century's Hindenburg. If it does crash and burn, there is little doubt that whatever takes its place will have to heed the limits on government's power set by the Constitution. If fully informed, the public will expect, and demand, no less.
________________________________________
[1] United States Dept. of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491 (1993)
[2] Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
[3] Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 154(1921). The World War II law is addressed in Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 517 (1944). ("There is no requirement that the apartments in question be used for purposes which bring them under the Act.")
Like John Kerry, who famously flip-flopped on his support of the Iraq war, Barack Obama was against the individual mandate for health insurance before he was for it. In this brief video clip from his appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres show during the 2008 Democratic primary, then candidate Obama is clear in his opposition to forcing people to buy health insurance. He lamely uses the analogy that "forcing everyone to buy health insurance won't solve the problem of (31 million) uninsured Americans any more than forcing everyone to buy a house will solve homelessness".
Lucky for him there weren't any serious journalists around to call him on his inane analogy. Then again, they never called him out on any of his myriad and outrageous flubs including the “57” states one – his referring to “57” states comprising the United States.
At a time when America and the world need a strong leader, we are stuck with an insincere, arrogant, contemptuous, inept and feckless President who does not know himself where he stands on the important issues of the day unless they are in the socialist manifesto.
One thing that you can count on with him is not counting on the veracity of his words, statements and promises.
Obama to DeGeneres on Why He Opposed Individual Mandate: Forcing Uninsured to Buy Insurance Is Like Forcing Homeless to Buy Homes
Eric Scheiner February 01, 2011
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden react to cheers as they arrive in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, for the signing ceremony for the health care bill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
(CNSNews.com) - Long before his administration went into federal court to fight 27 states that are now challenging the constitutionality of the federal government forcing people to buy health insurance, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama told Ellen DeGeneres that—unlike his opponent Hillary Clinton—he opposed forcing the uninsured to buy health insurance, saying that it would be like forcing the homeless to buy homes.
“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres' television show. “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."
In a ruling issued yesterday holding that the insurance mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson pointed to a similar statement that Obama had made in a Feb. 4, 2008 interview with CNN. “Indeed,” wrote Vinson, “I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.’”
Judge Vinson was the second federal judge to rule that the federal government does not have the constitutional power to force individuals to buy health insurance. Last month, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson also ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional. Vinson was ruling in a suit brought against the federal government by Florida and 25 other states. Hudson was ruling in a suit brought against the federal government by the state of Virginia.
The Obama Administration is wasting our money against our will to advertise his “Obamacare” on Google. This is at best a cynical form of propaganda in attempts to prop up support for the government takeover of our health care system. At worst, this is close to being criminal and definitely is immensely profligate of taxpayer money.
Obama Administration Purchases Google ‘ObamaCare’ Search Results
Meredith Jessup 12/17/2010
Type in a search of “ObamaCare” into Google — the world’s most popular search engine — and the results may surprise you. According to Politico’s Ben Smith, the Obama administration has purchased top billing to divert internet surfers away from antagonist websites to a new “sponsored link” — the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) healthcare.gov:
“We are using a bunch of search term[s] to help point people to HealthCare.gov. Part of our online efforts to help get accurate information to people about the new law (i.e. also use Facebook, Twitter, blogs and webcasts),” an HHS official confirmed by e-mail.
The ad buy represents a kind of recognition that the Administration has, to a degree, lost a battle over defining its terms, and that “ObamaCare” — coined and used largely by detractors of the plan — is in wide circulation. A search for the term on Google yields 2.5 million results.
For larger version of Google add featuring "ObamaCare" click here
We are being herded like sheep through airport security with Big Brother subjecting us to privacy robbing humiliating inspections either through digital means (and irradiating us as well) or multiple digit means (government sanctioned sexual assault). This is government imposed soft tyranny all in the name of security where we are all supposed to be treated equally.
Wrong!
There is an element of subjectivity that allows for inappropriate targeting of victims (see Baywatch babe for example) which clearly violates one’s personal rights.
The Obama Administration and Democrats support this egalitarian approach so as not to offend “Muslims” – the same group of people who have been shown to have a near total monopoly worldwide on terrorism.
They are blatantly stating that it is OK to offend, humiliate and violate the rights of tens of millions of innocent American travelers instead!
This is an abhorrent and perverse abuse government power and we should not continue to acquiesce.
Outrageous as this is, new evidence reveals that we have been duped all along regarding the true level of true security realized by these combined approaches despite the abuses and dehumanizing sacrifices that we have had to make in return. Independent research has revealed that these scanners can miss massive quantities of explosives such as PETN which could easily be smuggled aboard a plane and used to cause catastrophic damage.
The following article details these findings and the false sense of security that the scanners provide.
Journal Article: New Graphic TSA Scanners May Not Detect Powerful Explosive
Jonathon M. Seidl December 12, 2010
A new peer-reviewed journal article by a pair of University of California-San Francisco researchers reveals that the TSA’s new x-ray body scanners may not be as safe as the government agency wants the public to think. In fact, the scanners might not even detect pancake-sized bombs containing PETN, the explosive used in the failed “underwear bomb” last Christmas.
According to Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson in the Journal of Transportation Security, the scanners could miss PETN bombs if they were taped to a person’s body in a flattened, rounded manner.
The researches write about their findings in the article “An evaluation of airport x-ray backscatter units based on image characteristics.”
From the introduction:
We show that the body is exposed throughout to the incident x-rays, and that although images can be made at the exposure levels claimed (under 100 nanoGrey per view), detection of contraband can be foiled in these systems. Because front and back views are obtained, low Z materials can only be reliable detected if they are packed outside the sides of the body or with hard edges, while high Z materials are well seen when placed in front or back of the body, but not to the sides. Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect.
The article goes on to explain the pancake explosive theory:
It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology, ironically, because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy. Thus, a third of a kilo of PETN, easily picked up in a competent pat down, would be missed by backscatter “high technology”. Forty grams of PETN, a purportedly dangerous amount, would fit in a 1.25 mm-thick pancake of the dimensions simulated here and be virtually invisible. Packed in a compact mode, say, a 1 cm×4 cm×5 cm brick, it would be detected.
The article, as is common in journals, is rather technical. But the conclusion remains: the “backscatter” technology has its limits and its loopholes, and may not be the savior of airport security.
The Washington Times goes as far as to call the new scanners a “fraud” in an editorial last week.
“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano insists the public should trust her when she says the expensive airport scanners are safe and effective,” the editorial says. “Until now, there has been no way to verify this claim because the TSA and the scanner manufacturers have cloaked key operational data behind a veil of purported ‘national security.’”
It continues:
The researchers pointed out that the manufacturers of airport scanners positioned contraband like guns, knives and drugs in unnatural ways to conceal the limitations of their device. For example, the simulated drugs are always packed into tight rectangles that show up distinctly on the machine. TSA employees would have a far more difficult time spotting less tidy terrorists. “The eye is a good signal averager at certain spatial frequencies, but it is doubtful that an operator can be trained to detect these differences unless the material is hard-edged, not too large and regular shaped,” Mr. Kaufman and Mr. Carlson wrote.
The editors’ conclusion calls for the scanners to be scrapped:
In the end, this false sense of security creates a blindness that real terrorists will exploit. Continuing to rely on this fundamentally flawed technological crutch makes air travel more dangerous. The plug must be pulled on these invasive and ineffective machines.
For the tens of millions of Americans who are vehemently opposed to Obamacare, its mandates and federal government intrusion in their health care, there is great news. U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson issued a ruling on intrinsic issues of Obamacare yesterday. His verdict was that the requirement that a person purchase health insurance "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power" meaning that it is unconstitutional.
On the question as to whether this issue could abrogate that entire legislation, he did not commit except to state that though there was not a severability clause in it, he did not have enough information to adjudicate this.
It is now on to the Supreme Court for this particular challenge of Obamacare. There are many other lawsuits waiting in the wings.
Federal Judge Declares ObamaCare's Mandate Unconstitutional
Philip Klein on 12.13.10
Dealing a blow to the Obama administration, a federal Judge on Monday ruled that the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance -- a central component of the national health care law -- "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."
In a 42-page ruling (PDF), U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson, an appointee of George W. Bush, said that the Commerce Clause of the constitution did not give the federal government the authority to force an individual to purchase something. He also rejected the Obama administration's argument that the mandate to purchase "minimum essential coverage" was justified by Congressional taxing power. At the same time, Hudson declined to overturn the entire law, severing the mandate from the rest of the legislation.
The decision arose from a lawsuit brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, one of the two main legal challenges to ObamaCare. The other one is led by Florida and involves 19 additional states.
"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," Hudson wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I."
The judge went on to say that, "Because an individual's personal decision to purchase -- or decline to purchase -- health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not provide a safe sanctuary...The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, the Necessary and Proper Clause may not be employed to implement this affirmative duty to engage in private commerce."
The Obama administration had also advanced a secondary argument that the mandate could be justified under the Congress's power to levy and collect taxes. Yet Hudson said this argument didn't hold up, because the revenue collection element is incidental to the mandate -- it's a penalty and its primary purpose is as a regulatory enforcement mechanism. Also, the legislation itself cited the Commerce Clause as its constitutional justification.
Hudson did rule against Virginia on two other counts, though. As enacted, the law did not include what's known as a "severability clause," which specifies that if one part of the law is struck down, the rest of the law stands. Virginia had argued that it should be struck down entirely if the mandate is considered unconstitutional, but Hudson declined to do so, saying the Court didn't have sufficient information to determine "what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able to survive independently."
Hudson also declined to grant Virginia's request for an injunction against the mandate, because it has not yet gone into effect.
The judge acknowledged that "the final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court."
It should be noted that in two other lower profile cases, liberal judges have upheld the health care law. So ultimately, it's likely that this will end up having to be decided by the Supreme Court, with Anthony Kennedy, as always, casting the deciding vote.
Obama claimed that the strong opposition to Obamacare was only due to the fact that the legislation wasn't explained well enough and thus the public didn't understand it.
In reality, the facts are that the public does understand the concepts of Obamacare and absolutely abhor it, what it represents and how it will destroy the best health care system in the world. They know that it won't reduce costs which Obama and the Democrats tried to disingenuously pass off on the public. It is a disastrous and pernicious plan that will give the federal government ultimate control of our health care and involvement in some of the most intimate details of our lives and health.
The arrogance, disdain for the average American, limitless deception, elitism and egregious naked power grab of Obama, Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats in the formulation and corrupt passage of government controlled health care exceeded a level of reprehensibility unparalleled in Washington politics. It irrefutably demonstrates an intention and method for stealing our personal rights and liberties away and providing an irreversible way for the federal government to rule us – not represent us.
This is government by fiat as in many Third World countries – not by legal, Constitutional means. As enumerated below, the Democrats sought to shield this legislation from attempts to change or nullify it and did so in ways that were blatantly unconstitutional and depraved.
The Goldwater Institute is attempting to block a crucial provision of Obamacare: the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board which is charged with creating Medicare policies and health care payments. It is an autonomous commission with members appointed by the President that is designed to have no Congressional oversight or be subject to judicial review.
This arrangement wreaks tyranny – and was just what Obama and Pelosi wanted.
The election was one payback for the public’s rebuking of this pernicious legislation. We strongly recommend that the soon to be Republican dominated House impose condign retribution for the depraved actions of these two despicable politicians. It can start, for example, by severely curtailing Obama and Michelle’s White House budgets including for parties, trips, etc.
Keep them on a short leash and punish them financially when possible!
Goldwater Institute Asks Court To Block Key Provision of Federal Health Care Law
Health care bill created ‘untouchable’ Independent Payment Advisory Board
Goldwater Institute News Release
November 16, 2010
PHOENIX – The Goldwater Institute has requested an injunction [1] to block a provision of the federal health care law that prevents Congress from repealing a new agency that would control health care payments. A preliminary injunction is needed so Congress can consider revoking the Independent Payment Advisory Board before the agency has been established.
Among other measures, the federal health care law orders the creation by 2012 of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an unelected commission that will be free to set Medicare policy and health care payment rates with no meaningful congressional oversight and without the possibility of judicial review. The law also prohibits Congress from acting to repeal the agency in perpetuity, except for a narrow window in 2017.
“Protecting any new federal agency from being repealed by Congress appears to be unprecedented in the history of the United States,” said Diane Cohen, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney in this case.
The motion for preliminary injunction has been filed as part of Coons v. Geithner [2], one of nearly two dozen lawsuits around the country challenging the health care law. If granted by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow, the injunction will be the first time that any part of the law has been blocked, said Clint Bolick, litigation director at the Goldwater Institute.
“This injunction would restore power to our elected representatives to repeal an agency with new sweeping powers that are removed from any semblance of legislative, executive, or judicial review,” Mr. Bolick said.
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents a number of clients in this lawsuit including U.S. Representatives Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, and John Shadegg of Arizona. The congressmen have supported repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member commission appointed by the president that will have far-reaching and uncontrollable powers, Ms Cohen said.
Unlike any other federal commission, the Independent Payment Advisory Board won’t have to follow the basic steps for adopting and enforcing administrative rules. The board’s annual payment schedules and policy proposals can’t be examined by the courts and automatically will become law unless amended by Congress through a difficult and complex procedure.
Finally, even if Congress were to approve a repeal of the board in 2017, following the complex process allowed in the health care law, that repeal automatically would be delayed until 2020.
“No possible reading of the Constitution supports the idea of an unelected, standalone federal board that’s untouchable by both Congress and the courts,” Mr. Bolick said.
Coverage of the 111 new Obamacare Waivers by the White House has been virtually non-existent particularly by the liberal news media which is not surprising. This is a cynical, dishonest and discriminatory move that should be widely condemned for a number of reasons.
What are some of these reasons?
First, it is a tacit acceptance that Obamacare is a job killer which is the exact opposite of how it was sold by Obama, Pelosi, et al. We need to grow and nurture industries and business - not destroy them.
Second, it creates a two tier system where people are not treated equally thanks to government fiat. These waivers screw the little guy who as an individual has little power or money and is therefore treated as a second class citizen.
The simple solution to this is to nuke Obamacare by any and every means possible.
Obamacare was rammed through Congress by the Democrats and signed by “president” Obama against the vociferous opposition of the majority of Americans. They knew what its passage and implementation meant such as extremely high costs, oppressive increases in fees and taxes, rationing, loss of decision making in their own care and even withholding of care and options. In fact, we are already experiencing this even as Obamacare is just beginning.
We must remember this when voting on Tuesday November 2nd. Throw all the Democrats out of office. Then, the country can move on. As for Obamacare, it MUST be repealed in its entirety. Anything less than that is a failure.
We can then examine other options for further improvements of our present healthcare system.
A government takeover is not one of them.
50 Laboratories For Health Reform
Investor’s Business Daily 10/27/2010
Mandates: The constant complaint is that health care costs too much. But a federal takeover of the system wasn't needed to trim expenses. Reasonable policy changes at the state level would cut costs significantly.
Americans will spend $2.65 trillion on health care this year, or about 17% of the entire economy and roughly $8,000 per person. Health care is also growing as a share of GDP, crowding out other sectors of the economy in a trend that many would say isn't, well, healthy.
The reasons for this are varied. Government has established and nurtured a system in which most patients are distantly connected to payment for services. This encourages them to spend without regard to expense. A lack of self-rationing increases demand, which drives up costs.
Changes in this arrangement would help cut costs, but Americans tend to like this setup, so don't expect lawmakers to do much here.
The aging of our population is another factor, as is chronic illness in a country where life spans are lengthening. Costs are also pushed up by advanced treatments, the best doctors in the world and innovative diagnostic equipment.
Few would suggest cutting expenses by pulling back in these areas. Real progress, however, can be made in states where lawmakers have heaped costly mandates on health insurance policies.
In three states, mandates require such policies to include benefits for Oriental medicine. Another 10 require plans to cover hair prostheses. All but four mandate that insurance cover alcoholism treatment while 34 require the same for drug abuse. A benefit for smoking cessation is mandated in six states while port-wine stain elimination is required in two.
In 12 states, insurance policies must include access to acupuncturists. Three states say plans must provide for athletic trainers, and dozens make insurance pay for a variety of marriage, occupational and massage therapists, pastoral counselors and social workers. Four states even require that insurers provide for naturopaths.
In all, there are 2,156 mandates at the state level, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), 23 more than last year. Most of the mandates cover common benefits or providers, but as the foregoing list shows, some are highly suspect.
Few of these are costly by themselves; most increase the price of premiums by less than 1%. But when added together in a plan, insurance coverage becomes considerably higher. CAHI believes the mandates increase the cost of basic health coverage nearly 20%.
That's actually a starting point. CAHI says it could "be much higher, depending on the number of mandates, the benefit design and the cost of the initial premium." In some states, mandates increase the cost of health care plans by more than 50%.
With the average premium for a family insurance policy purchased through an employer costing about $13,000 a year — which is much higher than the $8,000-per-person cost of health care — a cut of 20% or more would not be trivial.
It's obviously a better way to hold down costs than ObamaCare, which we learn at every turn is going to cost far more than its backers projected and has its own expensive mandate requiring coverage for every American.
The mandates are an insult to common sense. A single man does not need an insurance package that covers in vitro fertilization, maternity leave, a midwife, breast reduction or mammograms. Neither is it necessary for a childless, unmarried woman to have a plan that includes care for a newborn and screening for prostate cancer.
And a teetotaler should have the option of choosing a plan that doesn't have benefits for alcohol and substance abuse.
In many cases, however, they have to pay for such coverage, either through individual policies or employer-provided plans. State legislators could restore good sense to the law and provide a genuine measure of reform by backing off the mandates and letting people buy from an a la carte menu of benefits and providers.
The appearance of the Tea Parties is a powerful statement of the parallels between our political situations today and those during the pre-Revolutionary times under British rule. We now have a triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid as compared to just King George III. Unfortunately, we have almost come full circle, largely as a result of our autocratic elitist government under unstoppable Democratic domination.
A similar comparison was employed by Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, when he appeared in federal court this week arguing against the constitutionality of Obamacare which mandates that all citizens purchase health insurance. In fact, he noted that Obama WAS WORSE than King George III.
Given our historical perspective and the responses of these two heads of state to their “subjects”, we find his argument difficult to refute.
Virginia attorney general compares Obama to King George III
Chris Moody - The Daily Caller 10/18/2010
Virginia’s fiery attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, who argued against the constitutionality of the health care law in federal court this week, has a new line: President Obama is worse than King George III, the English king in power when Americans declared independence in 1776.
Cuccinelli said Monday that at no other time in American history had a government forced citizens to purchase a product and gotten away with it, even the British King that sparked the American Revolution.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in April contains a provision that requires citizens to buy health insurance. Virginia’s lawsuit argues that the mandate is beyond the powers of the federal government, as defined in the Constitution. (A Massachusetts state measure, championed by former governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, requires everyone in the state to have insurance.)
In 1774, the American colonists signed onto a document that notified King George III that Americans would boycott British goods until the so-called “Intolerable Acts” were lifted. Speaking like a history professor, Cuccinelli told the story of how American colonists boycotted British products in response to the Acts more than 200 years ago.
“The King’s own lawyer, his solicitor general, advised him that the boycott was legal under British law and that Americans could not be forced to buy British goods,” Cuccinelli said. “Yet in 2010 we have a Congress and a president that have enacted a law that compels Americans for the first time in history under the guise of regulating commerce, that they must buy a private product even when the King of England and the parliament that we rebelled against acknowledged that they should not have the authority to compel us to do that when we were their subjects.”
The Obama administration has countered that Congress has the power to mandate health insurance under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The battle over the mandate is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
Print This Post
Subscribe to Our RSS Feed
Follow Us on Twitter
Comments