ObamaCare–The Worst Bill Ever
November 2, 2009
The Wall Street Journal had a great editorial on Monday about Pelosi’s Healthcare plan and described it as the worse bill EVER.
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.
The Worst Bill Ever
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she’s prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that’s what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a “critical milestone,” may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan “reform” and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be “universal coverage.” The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country’s fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.
•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run “exchanges” where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.
At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this “firewall”—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on “free” health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.
Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It “pays for” about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, “saving” about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.
• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to “pay for” universal coverage. While Medicare’s price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.
As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.
Even though the House will assume 91% of the “matching rate” for this joint state-federal program—up from today’s 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington’s budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.
• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point “surcharge” on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won’t have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn’t indexed for inflation. Yet it still won’t be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they’ll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don’t offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers’ premiums, which eat into wages. Such “play or pay” taxes always become “pay or pay” and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won’t buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
• The insurance takeover. A new “health choices commissioner” will decide what counts as “essential benefits,” which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history. (Anyone that knows anything about insuring people or about actuarial figures knows this is insane and will run the insurance companies out of business and leave – - – guess what? The GOVERNMENT PLAN of course and a single payer system that Pelosi wants.)
The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.
The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as “private” health insurance.
Harry Reid’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare
October 11, 2009
Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell appeared on this morning’s “Fox & Friends” to discuss reporting by NewsBusters.org’s sister site CNSNews.com that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is planning to hitch a health care reform bill on to an unrelated tax bill which passed out of the House of Representatives earlier this year. Of course this plan isn’t so secret anymore…….which is a good thing.
Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care. But after you read this you’ll see it’s obvious our representatives aren’t interested in being transparency or bipartisan when it comes to taking over 1/6 of our economy in health care. I think this is very dangerous considering the gov’t has already taken over the auto-industry with GM and several banks and insurance company AIG this year along. Is this what a Constitutional Republic form of government should be doing? No it’s not and many are concerned about the “change” Obama is bringing to America and where it’s taking us.
Congress’s Secret Plan to Pass Obamacare
The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.
The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage. (Does that tell you they don’t want a repeat of August when the bill was posted online and all the Town Hall meetings got nasty? Yes it does……so even though the majority don’t want a public option……..that’s what they’re going to pass anyway.)
The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:
Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.
During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families.”
Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.
Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.
Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.
Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It’s possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.
Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.
Transparency ? Democrats Refuse to Post Health Care Bill Online
October 1, 2009
What was that Obama pledged about TRANSPARENCY & POSTING A BILL ONLINE FOR 5 DAYS for the public to see?
83% Say Congress Should Post Bills Online For All To Read Before Voting On Them
Transparency! Democrats Refuse to Post Health Care Bill Online
Recall Barack Obama’s campaign pledge that he wouldn’t sign any non-emergency legislation passed by Congress until after it has been posted on the web for five days. On February 5, barely two weeks after the Democrat had been sworn in as President, Politico reported that he had broken that pledge when he signed SCHIP legislation ”barely three hours after the House approved the bill.“
Reporter Carrie Budoff Brown contrasted the speed of that signing with the text of his campaign promise:
“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them,” the Obama-Biden campaign website states. “As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”
Well, Senate Democrats seem to be following in the President’s footsteps. They don’t want to give the public the opportunity to review health care legislation before their elected representatives vote on it. ”The Senate Finance Committee just voted down a GOP amendment requiring that Obamacare legislation be available online 72 hours before the panel votes.” Democrats opposing the amendment called it “a delay tactic that could have postponed a vote for weeks,” refusing, in JammieWearingFool’s words “to even let the public see what they plan to ram down our throats.” (H/t Instapundit.)
What’s fascinating is that
. . the only version of Chairman Max Baucus’s proposal we have is a 223-page draft (PDF) that is written in plain English and explains the bill in conceptual terms. Republicans argued that until the bill is written in legislative language it will be impossible for the CBO to provide an accurate cost estimate.
Senator Jim Bunning’s (R-KY) amendment “would have required the committee to have the legislative language of the bill, along with the CBO cost estimate, posted on the internet for 72 hours before a vote.” And it takes time to draft that language, but it’s necessary for proper CBO scoring. And John Kerry whines, “Let’s be honest about it, most people don’t read the legislative language.” So, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee just wants to keep people in the dark about the precise details and the actual cost?
But, there’s still hope that Congress will act in the spirit of the President’s (neglected) campaign promise:
. . . a bipartisan group of House members is trying to force the Democratic leadership to change the rules so that any bill must be made public for 72 hours before members vote on it.
It might be difficult for Walden and Baird to collect the necessary signatures, especially given the reluctance of Democrats to sign onto something which would earn them the ire of the House’s Democratic leadership. Kudos to them for trying.
Still, it’s striking how quickly Democrats have returned to the old politics Obama so decried on the campaign trail last fall. If he were really committed to a new kind of politics, he would call on Senate Democrats to reverse their vote and support the Bunning amendment and encourage House members to sign on to Walden and Baird’s petition.
Reps. Greg Walden, R-Ore., and Brian Baird, D-Wash., are collecting the signatures of House members and if they get 218, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will have to schedule an up or down vote on implementing the three-day rule.
Dems block GOP amendment to demand for more time on Obamacare bill
September 24, 2009
What was that Obama said before being elected?
1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public (republicans shut out?)
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. You’ll know what’s in it (Republican Senators didnt know)
7. We will put every pork barrel project online
Dems block GOP demand for more time on ObamaCare
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday turned back a Republican amendment to wait 72 hours and require a full cost estimate before the final committee vote on the health care reform bill.
It was the committee’s first vote out of more than 500 amendments awaiting them, in what has already been a contentious mark-up session.
The amendment would have delayed a vote on the final bill for about two weeks to allow the Congressional Budget Office to complete its final analysis on the cost and implications of the legislation.
Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans for the amendment, further signaling that she may be an attractive swing vote for Republicans.
Instead, the panel passed an alternative amendment that would require the committee to post the full bill, in “conceptual” instead of legal language, as well as as a CBO cost estimate.
Separately, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday announced their own effort to force Democratic leaders to give members of Congress — and the public — 72 hours to review legislation before any bill is brought to the floor for a vote.
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, and Republican Reps. John Culberson of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon, would require House leaders to post all non-emergency legislation online, in its final form, three days before a vote.
The lawmakers have begun circulating a discharge petition that would force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote on their bill, which has been stuck in committee for months.
GOP lawmakers in particular have hammered Mrs. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for rushing long, complex bills through the House.
“The American people are angry that Speaker Pelosi didn’t allow the public and their elected representatives to read the trillion-dollar ’stimulus’ bill or the national energy tax before they were rammed through the House,” Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Wednesday. “Congress can, and must, do better.”
In the Senate Finance Committee debate, Democrats argued that the amendment, offered by Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican, was merely an attempt to stall President Obama’s top legislative priority.
“This is fundamentally a delay tactic,” said Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat.
Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, promised committee members that they’d have a preliminary analysis of the bill before they vote.
Republicans said the full analysis, which details the cost and implications of the bill, is necessary to inform their vote.
“It’s what [the public] expects us to do anyway — read a bill before you vote on it,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, ranking Republican on the panel.
Further complicating the process is the fact that the Finance Committee works on “conceptual language” — plain English explanations that are later turned into legislative text.
The committee has always worked with conceptual language with the understanding that if a lawmaker finds a discrepancy later, the chairman can change the text to reflect what was intended.
Democrats argued that the conceptual language made it easier to understand what the committee is voting on, but Republicans said that the legislative details are significant.
Rushed floor votes on the stimulus bill and the cap-and-trade energy bill — both of which totaled more than 1,000 pages — have fueled calls from the public that lawmakers read bills before voting on them. The House resolution is supported by several public-interest groups, including the Sunlight Foundation, which point out that hasty votes can result in unintended consequences, such as the provision tucked into the stimulus bill that had the effect of authorizing executives of bailed-out insurance giant AIG to receive retroactive bonuses.
Earlier this summer, Mrs. Pelosi told a reporter she would allow a 48-hour waiting period prior to bringing health care legislation up for a vote.
The discharge petition requires 218 signatures to force a vote on the bill, which has 98 co-sponsors. There are currently 256 Democrats and 177 Republicans in the House.
Obamacare:’ What does the Constitution have to say?
August 15, 2009
This is an issue federal government that shouldn’t be touching at all’ !
‘Obamacare:’ What does the Constitution have to say?
‘This is an issue federal government shouldn’t be touching at all’
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 |
No powers can be exercised by the Congress which are prohibited by the Constitution or which are contrary to its spirit.
– Justice John McLean, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857
Is a federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional?
Some argue that under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to regulate or subsidize health care.
Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center, told WND that if citizens want to understand whether health care is constitutional, they must first understand the function of the Constitution.
“The best way to look at it is that it doesn’t apply to you,” he said. “It doesn’t apply to me. It doesn’t apply to any person at all. It applies to the government, and it sets the boundaries of what government is supposed to do.”
Enumerated powers
In debating whether health care is constitutional, Boldin said citizens must look to the founding document to 1) determine whether the power is specifically listed there, or 2) if there isn’t a specific power listed, look to the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” or Article I, Section 8, clause 18.
Article I, Section 8, specifically lists the following powers granted to Congress:
- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
- To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
- To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
- To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
- To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
- To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
- To provide and maintain a Navy;
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
- To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
‘Necessary and proper’
Boldin said the last power, dubbed the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” does not grant the federal government unlimited authority, but gives it some leeway for certain things – only as long as those actions apply directly to the Constitution’s specifically enumerated powers.
He said a good example of a necessary and proper power in action is the authority to establish post offices listed in Clause 7.
“Article I Section 8 gives the federal government the power to build post offices,” he said. “But it doesn’t specifically state that it can go out and buy land to build post offices or hire labor to build post offices. Those actions would be necessary and proper and, more importantly, lesser than the main power. So, if they were only able to create a post office, but they couldn’t buy the land or the tools or the labor to do it, they’d never get the post office built.”
Boldin continued, “When you think of what is necessary and proper to carry out a specifically listed or enumerated power, it has to meet two criteria: It has to be directly applicable, and it also has to be lesser than the enumerated power.”
‘General welfare’
Some critics point to the “general welfare” stipulation in Clause 1 as a key provision granting the federal government the authority to regulate health care. However, in The Federalist No. 41, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” argued that “general welfare” in Clause 1 does not give the federal government unlimited power, rendering each of the following clauses redundant.
Madison asked rhetorically, “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
He continued, “Nothing is more natural nor more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”
Madison sought to address concerns of critics who warned that the “general welfare” clause opened the door to unlimited abuse.
“The Federalist Papers were public arguments to try to convince people to ratify the Constitution,” Boldin said. “They weren’t just writing about the general welfare clause for the hell of it. There was a real concern by people who were opposed to the Constitution that the general welfare clause would give this unlimited power to the federal government to do whatever it claimed would ’support the general welfare.’”
Referencing the “general welfare” concerns, Madison even accused critics of “labour[ing] for objections” by “stooping to such a misconstruction.”
“It wasn’t just the opponents of the Constitution saying there had to be limits to this,” Boldin noted. “It was the proponents of the Constitution who were saying, in order for it to be general welfare, it must apply to one of the enumerated powers.”
No federal authority
Because the power to regulate each citizen’s medical care is not included among enumerated powers, he said, the federal government does not have the authority to impose a single-payer system.
“You have to look to the Constitution and ask, ‘Is health care listed?’” Boldin said. “No. It’s not.”
“Is health care directly necessary and proper to carrying out any of the listed powers such as creating post offices and national defense?”
He said critics might argue that to have a good national defense, the United States must make sure that everyone is healthy.
“But that would not fall under any definition of what’s considered necessary and proper,” he said.
Furthermore, he cited the 10th Amendment, which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
He said that while the government has overstepped its bounds in many cases and used the federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment, that provision must not be ignored.
“No one has ever repealed the 10th Amendment,” he said. “They do it by judicial fiat, but it still exists.”
‘Equal Protection Clause’ of 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Some proponents of federal health care have argued that every citizen must be treated equally, and the current health care system is an example of gross inequality that runs contrary to principles of the 14th Amendment. They say wealthy people are able to afford and obtain medical treatment while the less fortunate are left to suffer when they are unable to pay for an operation or treatment.
“That argument would lead to a crazy slope where you could say everyone should have the exact same car,” Boldin said. “Then we should have the same guarantee of transportation to get to work, the same guarantee of food and shelter. Should we all have equal homes? I mean, if someone wants to make that argument, they have to make some serious changes to the Constitution to authorize it.”
He said regardless of their political affiliation or position on health care, citizens must ask themselves whether they truly want a government that has no limits.
“No matter what side you are on, you don’t want a government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants because it becomes dangerous,” Boldin said. “This is what the Founding Fathers and the entire founding generation had to fight against – a king who could set his own rules and make them up as he goes. Rules may not be a wonderful thing, but when you allow government to do whatever it wants, you are guaranteeing tyranny.”
Amending the Constitution
Some critics say the Constitution was meant to be a “living document” that would adapt to changing times, and since health care is a modern-day issue the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, they argue, the federal government must step in and provide a single-payer system.
With regard to the “living document” argument, Boldin said that is what the amendment process is for. However, he said, lawmakers won’t propose a health care amendment because they know it will not pass.
“They just don’t propose it because, if they did, that would make it a much more serious discussion,” he said. “The discussion wouldn’t just be about helping the poor people – which is obviously a good motive for the people who really believe that.”
He continued, “Instead, the discussion would be about the proper role of the government. Should it be involved in this at all?”
States move to nullify federal health care
Activists and state legislators are now focusing their efforts on state governments as a way to resist federal health care “reform” and stop federal usurpation of state rights, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Lawmakers in as many as 10 states are considering or seeking to propose bills and resolutions to nullify federal health care in their states.
The Tenth Amendment Center explains nullification:
When a state “nullifies” a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or “non-effective,” within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
“Nullification goes all the way back to fighting for free speech in 1798 when the federal government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts,” Boldin said. “Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions saying, you can’t do this; we’re not going to abide by this in our states. Jefferson specifically said the people in our country are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. The same holds true today. We’re not subjects.”
Recently, the issue of nullification re-emerged when nearly two dozen states mounted a resistance to the 2005 Real ID Act. Maine and Utah led the way by passing resolutions to refuse incorporation of federal security features into state driver’s licenses and identification cards. After meeting fierce state resistance to its plans, the federal government delayed implementation twice and later announced it would “repeal and replace” the controversial law.
“The federal government wasn’t able to do anything,” Boldin said. “It wasn’t able to threaten – nothing. It had to back off, and now it’s getting rid of it.”
|
|
Now states have turned their attention toward nullification of federal health care “reform” should it pass Congress this year.
On July 27, Florida State Sen. Carey Baker and State Rep. Scott Plakon filed H.J.R. 37, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent Florida citizens from being affected by federal health “reform.”
The proposed amendment prohibits “laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system” and permits “a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.”
It also exempts “persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and fines for paying or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services” and permits the “purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems. …”
If approved by the state legislature, Florida residents may vote on the amendment in 2010.
Likewise, the state of Arizona has joined the growing resistance to federal health “reform.”
|
|
On June 22, the Arizona state Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve H.C.R. 2014, known as the Health Care Freedom Act. Arizona residents will vote on the amendment sponsored by Arizona Rep. Nancy Barto in 2010.
This week, Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot announced he will propose a constitutional amendment to shield state residents from federal health “reform.”
Louisiana’s health chief, Alan Levine, told The Advocate that the legal debate should get interesting.
“The 10th amendment to the Constitution ensures states have the right to conduct their affairs except for those things specifically ascribed to the federal government,” he said. “Health care is not one of those things the federal government has the ‘right’ to impose on states.”
|
|
Boldin confirmed that The Tenth Amendment Center has been in contact with sources in seven other states that have indicated their legislatures will see similar health care nullifications as early as 2010. (I hope Tennessee is one of them.)
In a July interview with the Mark Davis Show, Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated that his state may join the showdown with the White House over federal health care.
“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care,” Perry said. “My hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”
Boldin said he expects the movement to grow as people realize they can take their concerns to their own state governments.
“This is what Jefferson, Madison and most of the founders recommended – this idea that there’s a balance of government. When the federal government gets out of control, you have to look to your state governments to protect you against it.”
“If these were all focused on state governments, we would probably see 10 or 20 nullification bills in states already,” he said. “And the health care program would be dead in the water.”
Ultimately, Boldin said, it’s not up to the federal government to provide health care for the nation.
“This is an issue that the federal government shouldn’t be touching at all.”
Well if this new Obamacare is the best thing since sliced bread, why is Congress exempting themselves from it?
In a June 24 ABC News health care forum anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson, Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, pointed out that members of Congress may propose government health care solutions for the American public that limit medical care options.
Meanwhile, he explained that lawmakers know that if their own family gets sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.
DOCTOR’S ORDERS
Why won’t Congress enroll in gov’t health care?
Democrats exempt themselves from own ‘reform’
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
If government-run health care is such a great idea, why won’t members of Congress enroll their own families?
The question has been on the minds of many Americans, but Democrats aren’t giving answers. Instead, they are exempting themselves from their own health care “reform.”
The Affordable Health Choices Act drafted by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s staff and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee pushes “Americans into stingy insurance plans with tight, HMO-style controls,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
At the same time, Page 114 of the act specifically exempts members of Congress from the public plan.
The bill mandates that all other Americans enroll in “qualified” health plans and submit proof of enrollment to the government.
Everyone must report “the name, address, and taxpayer identification number of each individual who is covered under health insurance that is qualifying coverage” and include the “number of months during the calendar year during which each such individual was covered under such health insurance,” along with “such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”
Under his plan for health “reform,” President Obama has promised Americans that citizens will have the same health care options members of Congress receive. During his presidential campaign, he told an audience in Canton, Ohio, in October 2008: “If you don’t have health insurance, you’ll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves.”
At a news conference June 23, Obama said people will be able to choose their insurance “the same way that federal employees do, same way that members of Congress do.”
Mark McClellan, a doctor and economist at the Brookings Institution, told USA Today he believes Congress gets a great deal when it comes to health care options.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, asked President Obama if he wouldn’t seek outside care for his wife or daughters if they became ill and his public plan limited treatment and tests. The president would not pledge not to seek outside care, though he said, “I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time. And, you’re absolutely right that if it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.
But Rep. John Fleming, R-La., a physician, asks if public health care is such a great idea, why don’t members of Congress who vote for it actually sign up their own families?
He has offered H. Res. 615 with 53 Republican co-sponsors, which states:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
Fleming said that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress won’t have to participate in the government plan for at least five years – and even after five years, enrollment will still be considered optional. Meanwhile, every other American will be forced to comply with government rules by obtaining “qualifying” plans.
Fleming told Fox News, “All these health care bills that are coming out on the Democrats’ side – the ‘reform’ bills – basically say that Congress is exempt for at least the first five years, and perhaps longer,” he said. “I’ve issued H. Res. 615 that simply says, look, if you vote for this, then you should choose it.”
He continued, “We’ve reached out to every Democrat in the House, and we have yet to have a taker. They want it for every American – except for members of Congress.”
Fleming’s bill has been referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
On July 16, Rep. Dean Heller, R.-Nev., offered a similar amendment to H.R. 3200 during the House Ways and Means Committee markup that would require members of Congress to enroll in its own government-run health care program. Democrats defeated the amendment by a vote of 21 to 18.
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike