A few years ago, Hilton Kramer and I commissioned a series of essays for The New Criterion on the illiberal underside of liberalism. We later published revised versions of the essays under the title The Betrayal of Liberalism: How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control. I mention this now not only to help readers out with their last-minute Christmas shopping but also to highlight the message of our subtitle: “How the Disciples of Freedom and Equality Helped Foster the Illiberal Politics of Coercion and Control.” It is one of the underappreciated ironies of our age, I believe, that many who call themselves “liberals” habitually support policies that are distinctly illiberal — often, indeed, are downright coercive — in their effect.
A proper anatomy of this phenomenon would take a book. It might start with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose deficient sense of the reality of other people could never compete with the satisfaction he took in contemplating his own virtue. And it might end with the revolutionary health care bill now wending its way through the U.S. Congress. Of course, the people touting the bill say — perhaps they even believe — that it will be good for Americans and that it will save money. Critics (of whom I am one) say that it will be a catastrophically expensive suite of legislation that will limit choice, impede medical innovation, and degrade the quality and timely delivery of medical care.
Like any ambitious piece of legislation, however, the bill to restructure American health care raises issues that go far beyond its primary purpose. The President touched on this obliquely in his “precipice” gaffe: we are, he said, “on the precipice of achievement . . . that will touch the lives of nearly every American.”
“Precipice,” “threshold,” whatever: he is right, anyway, that if the current bill becomes law it “will touch the lives of nearly every American.”
How will it “touch” us? Let me count the ways. Colloquially, first of all, as when we speak of “touching” someone for money. (What easy touches we have all turned out to be!)
But it will touch us in other ways as well. To appreciate one central way in which the bill will touch our lives, consider “Impermissible Ratemaking in Health-Insurance Reform: Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional,” the somber essay the eminent legal scholar Richard Epstein has written. (It appears on the web site of PointofLaw.com, but like so much important commentary these days, I came across it here, at Instapundit.) If you read nothing else this holiday season, read this. It is not cheering, exactly, but it is, after its fashion, bracing. For it not only makes good on its subtitle, explaining “Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional,” it also lays bare the coercive heart of the bill.
Really, the whole essay is worth reading, but here are a couple of snippets to set your heart beating:
On the one hand, the Reid Bill depends on a combination of huge general tax increases, which is coupled with special levies on industries such as medical-device and pharmaceutical companies. These tax revenues are then used to fund subsidies for large segments of the population in order to allow them to purchase qualified health-care plans that are sold through a set of State Exchanges that the Reid Bill creates. In order to prevent these subsidies from flowing through to the various health-insurance issuers, the Reid Bill imposes extensive obligations on any health-insurance issuer or health-plan provider that wishes to participate within the system in order to keep them from capturing subsidies meant for others. The effect of the subsidies is to increase the level of health care that will be demanded in the United States. The effect of the regulations is likely to be to impose huge costs on various health-insurance companies as they struggle to meet the influx of demand when they are at the outer limit of their capacity.
There are at this point enormous uncertainties about how this entire scheme will play out. My view is that it will prove ruinous on all three fronts. The general public tax increases will be so sharp that it is unlikely that they will generate additional revenues. The subsidies will be so large that the demand for medical services will be left largely unsatisfied, so two consequences are likely. First, an increased queuing for various health care services is to be expected. Second, there will be increased pressure to exclude large groups of people from the system, on the lines of Massachusetts’s recent decision to cut from its system 31,000 legal immigrant aliens (who pay taxes but do not vote).
Hold the egg. Skip the nogg. Go for the brandy. Neat, and plenty of it if you want to retain a modicum of Christmas cheer.
Here’s a question: Does Nebraska’s “special arrangement” violate the equal protection clause? Maybe these sorts of cases have already gone to the Supremes — cases wherein for no justifiable reason more dollars or tax exemptions go to one state than another for the same purpose — but I don’t recall having heard of any.
Even if I’m right, that would be a slim reed (har!) to hold on to in hopes of subduing this monstrosity.
Stuff like this always reminds me of Churchill who reminded us that in a democracy, the people get the government they DESERVE.
The sheer magnitude of this nightmare, and the fact that many of its central tenets (as well as the bribes it took to get the cloture votes) can even be considered as unconstitutional are alarming in and of themselves.
Even more disturbing is the fact that the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has been abrogated by this president and many of our elected representatives. That said, who will come to the defense of the Constitution?
Thats where things can get a bit ugly.
“Why the Reid Bill is Unconstitutional”
What does that have to do with the real world? Numerous scholars thought that Roe vs. Wade did not make sense constitutionally. Griswold Vs. Connecticut also comes to mind. The leftists dominate many of America’s law schools. Their graduates don’t believe in the U.S. Constitution! Results are all that matter. They most assuredly believe that the medical health bill is a beautiful thing that deserves protection from allegedly reactionary conservatives whose thinking is still stuck in the 19th Century.
I would hope that governors, senators, and representatives of all the other states (the ones that dont get exemption from this bills mandates) will raise holy heck. I dont appreciate having to pay for Nebraskas medicare/medicaid patients!
Lee (and Mr. Churchill) are on the money. As long as the voters chooses to pay closer attention to the little girl who was tragically murdered in Florida, the escapades of Tiger Woods and on-air talent shows, instead of the destruction of our country We will continue to get what we deserve. A republic cannot survive a lazy and uneducated electorate. When we lose focus (and we have) Obama happens!
Barry now not only owns the war, he owns the economy, and all outcomes thereof. There will be no more whining that its Bushs fault.
There are no more excuses.
There is no more suspension of disbelief.
I cant wait for November!
Somebody wrote a book entitled When Reason No Longer Matters recently and I didnt read it, alas. It doesnt matter.
The reality now facing us is under way and like Thelma and Louise hurtling toward the precipice theres no turning back. Our future seems doomed.
http://www.ambest.com/legal/statelawdigest.html
Go into just one state and try to read 100 years of regulations.
Some states have what I personally call an underfunded law.
If an insurance company does not have a certain rating and sufficient funds it can not have health products sold or serviced in that state.
The federal government is in debts of -12 trillion dollars and I am anxious to see what their rating would be.
My best guess would be DD- minus and each state should refuse their services.
As Lenin said, The worse the better. The behaviour of the leftists in America will make them unelectable for the next few decades. Their arrogance will be the end of them…
On my blog, I wrote a few article on this very topic…
About Obama jumping from the precipice…
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/12/he-jumped-he-jumped.html
And what republicans should do…
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-should-conservative-do-now.html
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/12/never-let-good-crisis-go-to-waste.html
Well one thing positive about Harry Reid…he looks the part.
A mix of gray humorless Soviet bureaucrat, Calvinist deacon, and
small town undertaker.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states “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. . . .” One argument (of many) would be that this healthcare abomination does not treat all the states the same (i.e. all the other states get to pay for Nebraska’s Medicaid). Thus, it is not “uniform throughout the United States”.
#15. That’s an easy fix – they’ll amend the bill to pay for all the other states Medicaid too. We’ll all have our hands in each other’s pockets all across this once great nation singing songs of unity and togetherness. Sort of a literal touchy-feely way to acheive a new society.
As long as we’re all stealing from each other it becomes the norm and so what’s the beef?
Direct Constitutional Challenge
Most members of Congress are Attorneys, they are also political hacks, who merely flap their lips. As of this writing Obama HealthCare has not been enacted, nor are all of its provisions known as it has not been even published to read. There are portions that are known.
Obama HealthCare has many issues repugnant to the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution is a “collective” document, meaning it was a grant of limited authority to create a central government for the States and the Citizens therein. There is no authority whatsoever for the Congress to legislate or tax non-uniformly. I realize they do this it all the time. Doing a thing without authority will not stop until someone raises the issue.
There are others far more knowledgeable on the matter than I. The real issue is who will challenge. There are probably far more issues than listed here.
The Congress is very limited as to its authority to even create HealthCare.
Under what Constitutional authority is the HealthCare Bill created?
I can only find 3.
ARTICLE I, Sect. 8. Clause 1: Congress often claims it can tax for the “general welfare of the United States” but doing so under this mandate it goes on to clearly state, “but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
1. The Congress is going to mandate the States to pay for part of this Obama HealthCare. It makes no difference what they call this funding – it is still a TAX, and a TAX imposed on the States. Not discounting the alleged “welfare” issues, how can this matter (as a TAX) be uniform if the Congress pays for life the tax of one State (Nebraska) and not others.
If all the other States and the Citizens therein must pick up the TAX on Nebraska, how can it be said to be uniform.
ARTICLE I, Sect. 8, Clause 3 [the Commerce Clause]
2. It is said the Congress is mandating all citizens to buy Health Insurance or face fine and or imprisonment. Congress has the authority to “regulate” commerce, it does not have the authority to mandate commerce, the type of commerce much less the authority to compel the buying of anything. Buying mandatory auto insurance to use the roads is a far cry from what they are doing here, and generally done by the States. What we are discussing is Federal Constitutional authority. No Court has ever upheld Congress’s authority in this respect or context.
ARTICLE I, Sect. 8., Clause 18 [necessary and proper]
3. If they lack authority above then there can be nothing [necessary and proper], then again what are the limits to anything [necessary and proper].
Authority:
To the United States Supreme Court;
Article III. Judiciary
Sect. 2. *Jurisdiction*
[Cl. 1.]; The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.
[Cl. 2.]; In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
ARTICLE I, Sect. 8. -The Congress shall have power:
[CL. 1. - TAXATION ]; To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
[CL. 3. - COMMERCE ]; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
[CL. 18. - MAKE ALL LAWS ]; To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
ARTICLE I, Sect. 9. – LIMITATION OF POWER
[CL. 4. - DIRECT TAXES ]; No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Bill of Rights
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States receptively, or to the People.
9. baal:
When you gonna stop blaming Clinton?
3. Lee:
Stuff like this always reminds me of Churchill who reminded us that in a democracy, the people get the government they DESERVE.
Lee, stuff like this also reminds me of Churchill, who said, “NEVER GIVE UP.”
Right now would be a good time to start making copies of any and all reports, statistics, and any other US public health data. There’s going to be a concerted effort in the next few years to convince people that this disaster is an “improvement” when health care in this country deteriorates to the level of the UK and the rest of Europe, or worse. As Orwell said, he who controls the past controls the future.
Of course this bill is unconstitutional, in fact and in spirit. It will be a matter that will have to go to the courts, however, as a Senate vote does not make something constitutional or not. Given the average intellect and moral framework of senators, I wouldn’t expect them to make an informed, objective decision anyway. Everything is just a race to photo ops or sell/solicit favors, P. J. O’Rourke’s Parliament of Whores at work, with the cleverest and most venal being the “winners”. At the time, I found that appellation amusing. No more.
Each new day brings a new source of disgust to me.
With all due respect to many of you, crosses my mind that a lot of this discussion seems to be taking place in the context that the ‘rules’ remain the same and this is just another conservative low like the 70′s (which I remember well). In my considerably long life, I have never seen anything in the U.S. like what is going on with the Marxists now in power. And, make no mistake, they ARE Marxists, and they will do anything to further their fanatical (religious) vision of a temporal utopia.
As a formal student of history and traveler in the former USSR and Eastern bloc, who knew and still knows party members there, and who was in my youth a Marxist, I believe that Obama and company are EXACTLY these people. Some of his followers may not completely realize this, but many definitely understand perfectly well. It was my familiarization with the implementation of Marxism ‘on the ground’ that led to a huge shift in my political perspective.
So, given that, I think that too many people are still talking about this situation without grasping its gravity. And too many conservatives are so comfortable they would not know how to take action that may be required to preserve their liberty, especially if the action threatened their comfort zone. If the situation were reversed, the left would be in the streets… not just a Tea Party here and there, but filling the streets until ‘something happened’. I fear we on the right, despite our words, don’t have that committment. These people don’t care what you think.
Until you are willing to stand up, prepared to physically stop them, they will proceed with their agenda without a care for what you think. And at some point you will be unable to break out of the controls that they put on every aspect of your life. We in a death spiral, and most of us don’t even understand what’s happening.
Sorry but the bill is constitutional under the commerce clause and the ability to tax and regulate for the general welfare.
16. I hear you, but at this point that would be a good thing, if only because it would further delay its passage. Meanwhile the poll numbers continue to drop.
23. Are you trying to sound stupid or did you just parrot what somebody else told you. You didn’t even read the article.
“I think that too many people are still talking about this situation without grasping its gravity.”
Absolutely. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE. Get that through your skulls. THIS BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH CARE.
Discussing the fine points of the issue such as its “unconstitutionality”, costs, and features is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: THE SHIP IS GOING DOWN.
This is a takeover of the government. Repeat: THE MARXISTS ARE TAKING OVER THE GOVERNMENT. WE WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN.
The issue is not health care, the issue is preserving the republic and our freedoms. It is the most important issue America has ever faced.
This bill MUST be stopped. Failure is not an option.
Just tell me the location of the prison which I am to report as my motto is: if they pass it I will not obey and if they tax it I will not pay. And then there’s that whole “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” thing.
+1000 Old Conservative; well said. Interestingly, even those on the left don’t seem to understand the strategy of one of their own.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/leadership-obama-style-an_b_398813.html
But it all makes sense if one understands Alinsky, who, unlike many on the left, was a realist as opposed to an idealist. 2010 is going to be interesting.
#22 Old Conservative:
“I have never seen anything in the U.S. like what is going on with the Marxists now in power. And, make no mistake, they ARE Marxists, and they will do anything to further their fanatical (religious) vision of a temporal utopia.”
Oh, would that that were the case.
Marxists had a plan, a party and a philosophy, these could be argued with, disrupted and suppressed.
THIS crew are supremely arrogant and corrupt narcissists.
And that is a lower form of polecat than a Commie.
Mencius Moldbug over at “Unqualified Reservations” recently had a great insight into the “Commie” cabal that infested the FDR and Truman Administrations…
Basically, Harry Dexter White never saw himself as a tool of the KGB, but rather viewed the KGB as the tool of Harry Dexter White.
If you give it some thought, that goes a long way towards explaining what mindset our overlords apparently hold.
“If the situation were reversed, the left would be in the streets… not just a Tea Party here and there, but filling the streets until ’something happened’. I fear we on the right, despite our words, don’t have that committment. These people don’t care what you think.”
Street demonstrations and thuggery have never
been the Right’s long suit…conservatives have too much respect for private property to advance a widespread state of general lawlessness.
No, the Right reacts in two ways: with economic strangulation of the economic underpinning of their opponents, (offshoring unionized labor being the best example of this)…and Death Squads, (“Latin American Model”, for the squeamish).
As long as Americans wish to remain as one polity ruled from Washington, I’m afraid that our future will oscillate between the Scylla and the Charybdis of those two poles.
The Zimbabwefication of America will be complete.
Personally, I’d opt for Secession. Let the Union-loving Washington Welfare Worshipers starve and freeze while taxing each other to penury in their socialist sh*t-hole eco-friendly nuclear-free “paradise”.
These goobs in charge don’t REALLY want to take on maybe 50,000 sandal-wearing neo-medieval insurgent goat-herders in Afghanistan…and everyone knows it.
Do they then think, against a similar native insurgency, that they could keep Texas or Georgia captive? Wyoming? Idaho?
Besides they don’t have the money to fund it, and their credit card is WAY over-limit.
I blame his Mormonism.
From Jack Whyte’s novel, The Eagle.
“A man who cannot laugh at himself can never see the humor in anyone or anything else, and that is a tragic flaw, no matter who it may involve. For in the lack of humor lie all the seeds of evil and destruction. People who see themselves as being worthy of admiration, and who cannot conceive of themselves as ever being a cause for laughter, are far too serious for their own good, and even worse, they generally believe they have a calling to impress the importance of their beliefs on others. God save us all from humorless men, for they are also merciless and implacable.”
#17, A tax on doing nothing, i.e., a breathing tax, appears to be a direct tax (a capitation), which must be apportioned. The 16th Amendment exempted the income tax from apportionment (some forms of income tax were consider to be direct), but a tax on doing nothing is hardly an income tax, even if the Internal Revenue Service is drafted to enforce the “mandate.” Other than direct taxes, all other taxes have to be uniform throughout the US.
Mandatory auto insurance is an inapposite example, because states have always had a general police power, whereas the Federal Government does not and never has. Also, notice that even in the case of auto insurance, you have to insure against injury to others, not to yourself, and you don’t have to obtain insurance to do nothing, i.e, to not drive. An analogy to the mandate would be a requirement to have auto insurance to just stay in your home.
Please go here to the LA Times. We have a chance to post a comment. This article is stunning to see in a MSM newspaper.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg22-2009dec22,0,7045732.column
#23 artknarf:
“Sorry but the bill is constitutional under the commerce clause and the ability to tax and regulate for the general welfare.”
With all due respect, THAT will be a decision reserved to the States, or to the People.
One way or another.
I can only say that Harry Reid is out of his world if he think that he can pass this shit of Healthcare. The Bolshevik revolution is what he wants? Is that what he is looking for? Not even the Left want this Shitcare legislation.
Honduras took care of Zelaya and we the people in America have our first Amendments Rights to fight for freedom too. This Stalinists Administration will not imposed their new Neo Marxist agenda on the American people and think that they can get away with. Mr. Demint is fighting it already because Obamashitcare is unconstitutional!!Say no to Stalinism, say no to Obamacare!
Obama, Reid and Pelosi: Domestic Enemies of the Constitution.
From the Times Online comment area when the Rothschild banking family proposed privatizing the motorways in Britain and charging users a toll:
“Philip Braine wrote:
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street.
If you drive to the city, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat.
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman!
‘Cause I’m the taxman.
Yeah, I’m the taxman.
And you’re working for no one but me.”
Frankly, I’m beginning to think (as many who study the history of modern banking) that the Rothschilds are underwriting this global disaster so they can further consolidate their power over the world. The guys at the Fed are already owned by them. China recently bought into one of their banks and some suggest that this relationship will encourage China to pull in on our debt. These historians see Obama/Emanuel/Axelrod as mere shills and the Democratic Party pols will do ANYTHING to win/stay in power. Won’t the pols all be surprised when they have to kowtow to the international banking family that owns us.
When the government stops listening to the people that made them the government, it’s time for the government to go.
2010 will be interesting in will the vote “fix” be in and we get the a$$es again.
Right now, we have the government we asked for and deserve.
However rotten Sen. Nelson’s deal was it is not unconstitutional. This issue arouse in 1790 when the Federal Gov. assumed the Revolutionary War debt of the states. Those states with little or no debt complained about having to pay for the states that did but the deal went through. Since the framers of the Constitution were still alive and most did not complain we have to assume the Nelson deal would pass muster.
Lady Liberty has been forcibly accosted in a public park and dragged behind a row of bushes by a couple of thugs. There were many witnesses.
Most just continued on relieved it wasn’t them.(the public) Some gathered together, confirmed what they saw and tried to find a way to use this crisis to their advantage. (congress) A few got up off the benches and proudly used their hi-tech cell phones to snap photos of the perpetraitors to be used as evidence in court at a later date. (tea partiers, can’t wait till Nov. 2010′ers)
Who will be the ones willing to stop the assault and salvage Her sacred honor?
This was, for me, the most disturbing part of a very disturbing piece:
“I think Professor Epstein makes a powerful case, though I have my doubts about whether a Constitutional challenge would be successful.”
Our governmental representatives are out of control — clearly disregarding the Constitution they are sworn to preserve, protect, and defend — and knowledgeable, clear thinkers such as Kimball believe that there likely is no legal remedy.
We can “vote the bums” out of office eventually, of course. But the advantages of incumbency make that objective one that will take years to accomplish.
Which makes it all the more troubling that the courts offer an improbable avenue of redress.
Spot on Old conservative! Conservatives don’t have the same perspective as the radical left. We respect institutions and laws. In normal times that serves us well, these are not normal times. We will be in bondage and our only recourse will be acceptance.
One thing that keeps nagging me:
Stimilus money was provided to those states who votes for democrats 2:1.
Car dealerships were selected to be closed, 99% were those giving money to republicans/conservatives.
Will this bill besides the un-constitutionality descriminate against those of us who do not support democrats???
As with social security and medicare, I am sure, given some time, that conservatives will beging to understand and accept health care reform. We evolve, and as far as government spending goes, the money we have spent for our two current wars and to the middle east for oil in the past year, yes one year… could pay for free health care and free education for the next 30 years. So maybe its time to pay for something that will really help our country instead of hurting it….opportunities like this do not happen often. So find a good job, pay your taxes and enjoy the benefits.
the GOP is enjoying an increasing endorsement,free from Bush and from Palin too.
Avoiding new ivory towers,we are ready for the forthcoming Congress campaign
Democrat healthcare: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Payer!
30. Now and Then:
At least we know which side God and our religion is on:
“These Are Not Men to Be Conquered”
Vaughn J. Featherstone
April 1980
#44 Poor Citizen
I have a job, I pay taxes. I don’t want to pay more for your health care.
ObamaCare is unconstitutional given it restricts freedom, liberty, & choice by forcing private insurance companies out of business so other businesses have no other choice to put their employees on the government run boondoggle ObamaCare; furthermore, ObamaCare makes it illegal to not have health insurance. In essence, one is committing a crime without ObamaCare. The other unconstitutional aspect of this bill makes it impossible to change or kill ObamaCare with future Congresses. The Democrats have overplayed their hand since Porkulus. But this is the last straw. It’s a pathetic desperate power grab that will backfire into a never-ending firestorm for the Democrats, particularly, President Obama.
Having ObamaCare done is the dead of night just shows how desperate the Democrats are to control 1/6th of the economy. The tyrants are about to lose their political heads regardless of the outcome.
When all the old boomers find out they can’t have their hip or knee replacements or the face lifts or the chemo treatments; there will be such a howling. When those under 55 get their insurance bill that is double; it will be all over. There is a reason that when this was tried in Hawaii that it was discontinued in 9 months. Just watch. I have faith in the American people.
#39 RAP, I’m sure you could cite plenty of other, more modern examples. I will say, though, that my initial idea relied on the 14th Amendment, naturally not in place until well after the Revolution.
Poor Citizen, Social Security & Medicare had an open debate on the House & Senate for all the people to see & was not made with backroom deals & legislation thrown onto the floor for a hurried vote; your comparison is seriously flawed. ObamaCare only survives in the shadows; the more is learned about ObamaCare, the more the people are against it. This will in fact harden as inertia sets in around the nation. ObamaCare is an albatross for all involved for this reason. And it will destroy the Obama Administration, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, & any other Democrat who signs onto the bill.
The good news: The Federal government
cannot enforce such a law against the
non-violent, legal opposition of the
states: en _force_, people: They will
_not_ have the support of the US military.
The bad news: The Left lunacy is caused by
the unacknowledged fact that the game is over;
The US is bankrupt, and will soon have real,
serious hard times to face, not legislative
shadow boxing.
43. Inge:
“One thing that keeps nagging me: Car dealerships were selected to be closed, 99% were those giving money to republicans/conservatives.”
Here’s an educational exercise for you. Embrace it and share your results . . . Of all U.S. auto dealerships, what percentage donate to Republican/conservatives?
Another Hannity sponge soaking up indiscriminate talking points from a guy who welched on his pledge to charity and who donates all of 4% of the the proceeds from his Freedom Concerts. yeah, he’s a great American. A great American huckster. By the way, he drives a hybrid Escalade, in case you haven’t heard him say that 18,000 times.
Anyway,we await your results.
DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX
========================
Invoking the “Constitution” in order to win an argument, is, to me, like conjuring up the “Koran” to sanctify or condemn an action. In either case, I get extremely suspicious, and, quite frankly, the argument is lost the minute I hear either term.
Professor Epstein’s essay is to be commended for its fine and lucid rhetorical presentation. But ultimately it is unconvincing in its attempt to condemn the Reid Bill as “unconstitutional”.
The idea that the US Constitution should play any part whatsoever in determining whether Congress passes a bill or not is sort of……I don’t know what. Absurd is the only word that comes to mind.
“The Law Does Not Concern Itself With Trifles” as my title above reads. Neither should the Constitution. “Abortion” is not a constitutional issue. Neither is involving it with “Gitmo prisoners”. Neither is involving it with “national health care” and so on. To do so cheapens and finally weakens the Constitution.
Epstein makes it clear from the outset that his essay will focus “…on the constitutional question in the ratemaking context…” In other words, the question he tackles has to do with the “rates” or “premiums” health insurers currently charge their members for health coverage.
I can hardly believe the Constitution has anything at all to say on this subject. Can you?
Reading Epstein’s essay, one comes across phrases and ideas that are hard to swallow. Here are a couple (and my commentary):
1. “The Supreme Court’s basic constitutional requirement is that any firm in a regulated market be allowed to recover a risk-adjusted competitive rate of return on its accumulated capital investment.”
This is simply the Court’s interpretation. Such a “requirement” is not in the Constitution anywhere.
—-> The Court has for several decades made it plain that the US Constitution can be disregarded whenever it deems fit that it should. (Read Judge Robert Bork on this).
2. “Although the Constitution requires that regulations permit regulated firms to recover a risk-adjusted competitive rate of return….”
No, it doesn’t. The Constitution says not an iota on this subject.
And so on.
The Reid Bill and the whole national debate on what to do about health coverage in the USA has its origins in one simple fact: the current system does not work.
As has been pointed out numerous times, the US is the only “advanced” nation with such an unjust and really criminal national health policy.
If anything is “unconstitutional” it is the lack of even minimal health care for all US citizens regardless of income or wealth.
Doesn’t the “Preamble” itself say “….promote the general Welfare….”?
The Reid Bill may be criticized on its merits or demerits, on its cost, on its workability and so on. But it cannot be denounced because it is unconstitutional.
Entirely missing in all this, since at least last Spring, is any action whatsoever by our malfeasant Guardians of Liberty, the mystical/magical Black Nine. Given Comrade Sotomayerski’s indubitable Statist prejudices, that may be just as well.. but when Rule of Law becomes a dead letter, subverted to the Humpty Dumpty pretense of “words mean anything we say” –”no law” means “anything goes”– democracy’s procedural bulwark ruptures in favor of street action on citizens’ survival basis.
Reid/Pelosi-crats in their hybristic arrogance, allied with a subversive wastrel enthroned in office like a racist jumping-jack, employ anti-parliamentary thuggery to fasten their parasitical agendas on the body politic, seeking to pre-empt repeal by specifying super-majorities. Beware– just as one cannot sell himself into slavery, so such ill-intentioned, fundamentally corrupt and stupid legislation as Reid’s 60 doltish acolytes profess can be “sponged, purged, and if need be blasted” from the record citizens acting in survival mode. Precedents date to 1774 and earlier.
Greenies, Warmists, atavistic reactionaries of all stripes seem a Boomer phenomena, spoiled brats beating spoons on reality’s high-chair. As COP15 just demonstrated, they are constitutionally incapable of dealing objectively, even rationally, with any substantive issue whatsoever [pun intended]. By 2018 if not before, their cherished UN will dissipate as if it had never been… Ban Ki-moon, Pachauri, suppurating Sudanese demagogues, will go the way of Nineveh and Tyre. Can’t happen soon enough.
Hey, “they” (our Government) didn’t give a crap that McCain Feingold” was unconstitutional. What makes PJM readers think that “Affordable Health Care Act” will be unconstitutional. After all the Democrats “own” most of the lawyers.
The healthcare bill is NOT un-Constitutional. I have a memo right here in my hands written by John Woo that says it’s perfectly fine.
And that, my friends, is that.
Despite whether it is constitutonal or uncontitutional we all know this is wrong. The Founding Daddy`s did not have this type of power grab by the federal gov`n in mind when they crafted the Constitution. It is our duty as citizens of a free nation to stop this tyranny `by any means necessary`.
#18 NAT say:
9. baal:
When you gonna stop blaming Clinton?
Dec 22, 2009 – 5:56 pm
Hahaha. This is the kind of stuff with which NAT claims he destroys his opponents arguments. What a stoonad!
In any case this bill is the worst piece of legislation since the days the Democrats made it possible for more states to adopt slavery (Blame Sen. S. Douglas for that one).
RAP @39
With all due respect, I disagree. Sticking provisions in the bill, with NO REPEAL clause, is unconstitutional. On the grounds of welfare of the nation. That is in constitution. Suppose, it will come out ( and make no mistake, it will come out) that this bill adds billions to the deficit, You mean to tell me that it can not be repealed? As its written in the bill? Who gave you or Reid for that matter, or anyone, to institute dictatorship in this Great Country?
Unconstitutional that is. That is my opinion, however, Im not a lawyer.
I was born in socialist country, lived there for almost 30 years, and I can tell you, its not what you would want to institute here.
Regards.
Roger: I just read one line of your blog.. and you are saying tha this healthcare bill raises general taxes.. so you are just in it for your self… listen simpleton: there are millions of us out there who are will to be taxed so our fellow citizens have access to health insurance. This si the right thing to do. after all we are going to pay for it anyways tax or not someone is paying for it. I see that you wear a bow tie. what is that all about?
Another Constitutional problem with Reform – violation of the 1st Amendment.
Lets say the Congress passes a law that effectively destroys supplies of halal/kosher food in the country and prohibits importation of as well CONSUMPTION of it. In other words it is now illegal to make and eat Halal/Kosher food. How does that work with the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..) in regards to Jews and Muslims? It is obvious such law would prevent FREE exercise of those religions, by intentionally or unintentionally creating prohibiting hurdles for people who follow those dietary laws based on their religious convictions.
Now, lets look at our situation. According to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius EVERYONE will pay for ABORTION …whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay….
See the interview at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCmFFDyDrv8feature=player_embedded
What just happened? The law (Congress) effectively bars CHRISTIANS, or anybody else with religious views against Abortion from being able to participate in ALL INSURANCE PLANS in USA, thus directly punishing them for the exercise of their FAITH! Needless to say it is a direct violation of the First Amendment, whether the mandate is voluntary or not.
The repercussions of this are not confined to only Christians. If the precedent is set, the Government will be able to bully everyone else – Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and so on. If you think, well it doesnt affect me – it doesnt affect you yet…
A couple of months ago, I tried to read and compare the House and Senate versions of Obamacare. I was particularly interested in a difference which might affect U.S. citizens residing permanently outside the U.S as I do. When as a result I began to go blind, to shout at our dogs and to feel an urge to unplug my computer, I gave up. The bills were so long, convoluted and had so many cross references that without a team of paralegals and a psychiatrist to prescribe medications, I simply was not up to the task.
Nevertheless, under the House bill as I understood it, ex pats were to be expressly exempted from the requirement to buy government approved medical insurance and from the tax penalties for failing to do so. Under the then most recently available version of the Senate bill, there was no such exemption and ex pats were to be subject to those requirements; even those of us who never return to the States and have good but inexpensive medical insurance in our countries of residence. Here is a short article about the problem, directed principally to U.S. citizens residing in Israel; a friend who lives there thought I might be interested as well. However, the problem should also be of concern to those of us who reside elsewhere (I live in Panamá and have not been back to the U.S. for about five years).
Although I suppose it is arguable that there may be valid reasons to force people to have some level of government approved medical insurance if they might otherwise burden the government with their health care requirements, I can’t think of any argument at all to justify a requirement that people not in that category do so.
It’s a small point, and presumably of little if any significance to those who reside in the United States. However, there are almost certainly other obscure provisions which may be of great significance to them. Before whatever reconciled bill is voted upon, it is a disgrace not to allow all of us a reasonable opportunity at least to make an effort to understand what we are in for should it pass.
#55 SodaJerk. I am sure you are not that misinformed; “promote the general welfare” does not mean Welfare as defined by LBJ. Even it did mean such a thing (which it does not) it says promote not pay for. The Government of the United States is not and was never meant to be a provider/father of its citizens. In our form of government food, clothing, shelter and health care are not to be provided for you by the government. You are to provide them for yourself, get them from charity or do without. The Government only provides for infrastructure, trade regulations/treaties, military/law enforcement. Everything else is outside of their mandate. Our government was not ever meant to be a charity program. There are plenty of other governments around the world that do have that mandate. They end up one of two things; bankrupt or dictatorships. This is why the U.S. is “exceptional”. It is a country for grown-ups that want to take care of themselves. If you want someone else to take care of you then I would suggest you find one of those countries; this isn’t the one for you.
‘Twas always thus…
“It is socialism. It moves the country in a direction which is not good for anyone, whether they be young or old. It charts a course from which there will be no turning back.”
—Senator Carl Curtis (R-NE), in 1965, opposing Medicare
“The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.”
—Ronald Reagan, in 1961, arguing against the creation of Medicare
#62. mr:
“…there are millions of us out there who are will[ing] to be taxed so our fellow citizens have access to health insurance.”
Wow. mr and millions of his followers are willing to voluntarily send in more taxes than are necessary in order to pay for sick care. Thanks,mr. Volunteerism like that makes me proud to be an American. You choose your charities and we’ll choose ours. Sounds great to me.
Number 23 is incorrect, the constitution says “Promote the General Welfare” not “Provide the General Welfare”.
The Commerce clause is used for all manner of other depravations by the Left, too numerous to list here.
Funny how the same people who read in to the Constitution all sorts of things that are not there fail to see the things that are written explicitly, such as the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments.
For those who wish to pay more taxes than they owe, that is already legal. It always was legal. You have no cover there.
Spare us your misplaced sentiments. You are a bunch of phonies. You are drunk on Other People’s Money. You are an oppressive lot, petty tyrants, elitists, know it alls and phonies. You will be treated as such in the whirlwind which you are yourselves in the process of kicking up even as my fingers type this.
26. The unconstitutionality of the bill is not some “finer point” but rather a weapon in our arsenal to defeat it. Even if it passes, the Supreme Court can nullify it on several grounds.
To # 22 ,
Does your solution include a ‘revolution of physical violence’, if and when needs be,against any and all plutocratic oligarchic powers;including those who have given us much of the legalism of Marxist ideology (taxes on homes,forced health care-excepting those known as CONGRESSMEN ,tax free foundations,farm subsidies,UN anti-God control,world treaties,federal reserve….etc.)?
Republicans and Democrates are EQUALLY guilty of taking the lobby bribes,-as any banana boat republic in the third world has to offer-which over the past 140 years has brought us to where we are today..
They who CONTROL call all those who go against them: ‘rebels’;and all rebellions are put down!’Shays Rebellion’comes to mind,as does that which is called ‘SOUTHERN REBELS’ cause;union forever,right!.Recall that K Marx sent a letter to ‘HONEST(???)ABE’congradulating him on centrally controlling a nation as a first step to COMMUNISM.Most admit that this perfidious spirit and thoughts spring directly from the MASONIC lodges.
The problem is multi tierd and massive.Jefferson Davis said it best right after the outrageous war that a sick lawyer pushed homeTherefore, it appears to be a monumental task to plan a defense against.Without which it will be nothing but sporadic choas and hell.
The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.” Jefferson Davis, address to the Mississippi legislature – 16 years after the wars end.
“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”
“[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.”
To be instructed and learned is the first step,but to not apply that knowledge under commision of a position of power is a sure sign of negligence and derelection of duty.
myth buster,
Yes, the Supreme Court can nullify it (whatever it may turn out to be) on multiple grounds. Unfortunately, that has very little to do with whether it will do so and also little to do with whether even if it does, it will be in time to reverse the damage.
It generally takes a very long time for a case to reach the Supreme Court, and lots of obstacles have to be overcome. Standing is one of them, and there are many others, including the financial costs of taking a case through the judicial process.
I think it would be far better to kill this legislative monstrosity off now, rather than wait until a case proceeds through the federal district courts, the courts of appeal and slowly makes its (chancy) way to the Supreme Court. This seems even more important since President Obama will probably have one or two opportunities to nominate Supreme Court justices to replace those likely to die or retire during his tenure in office. As things now stand, even were he to nominate William Ayers, the changes of Senate confirmation would probably be better than even.
It’s a big mess, but I would not count very heavily on the Supreme Court.
10. PM:
I cant wait for November!
With only about 13 Democrat senators up for election, the voters in those hugely democratic states better be hit hard with taxes and the fear and stress of this madness. So, if you can influence change in your state, here’s the list:
Those up for re-election in 2010:
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)
Barbara Boxer (California)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Barrack Obama’s replacement chosen by the Governor of Illinois after his resignation from the Senate in January to become President (Illinois)
Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)
Harry Reid (Nevada)
Chuck Schumer (New York)
Byron Dorgan (North Dakota)
Ron Wyden (Oregon)
Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
Richard Shelby (Alabama)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
John McCain (Arizona)
Mel Martinez (Florida)
Johnny Isakson (Georgia)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Jim Bunning (Kentucky)
David Vitter (Louisiana)
Kit Bond (Missouri)
Judd Gregg (New Hampshire)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
George Voinovich (Ohio)
Tom Coburn (Oklahoma)
Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania)
Jim DeMint (South Carolina)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Bob Bennet (Utah)
Kansas run, now filled by Sam Brownback, but incumbent won’t seek re-election
Christopher Dodd (Connecticut)
Go get’em folks. I’m working hard to defeat our corrupt Democrat, and I now see him polling about 33%. Go out and hit yours as hard as we’re hitting ours.
Congrats everyone.
You’re posting to a blog that is being moderated by buffoons!
72. I know, but I also know it’s always best to keep a plan B in reserve. If nothing else, the principle of stari decisis comes to our aide, ironically, with Roe v. Wade. If this bill passes, it will wind up being reviewed by the Supreme Court, and when it is, the Court will have no choice but to either toss out the bill or overturn Roe v. Wade, because this bill clearly does not respect the privacy of an individual’s medical decisions.
I sincerely hope Ried gets his butt stomped in the election, Pelosi gets kicked to the back of the room
I do not understand how they can put something into a bill that says it cannot at anytime in the future be changed. That is wrong.
This is a no-brainer for state governors to instantly nullify the law. People forget the states actually have more power then the federal government. Governor simply has to make a statement that he finds the bill unconstitutional, therefore the residents of the state have no obligation whatsoever to follow or pay for any such law. End of story. The bill is unconstitutional in so many ways it’s impossible to discuss in one sitting. Then again, everything done this year by this administration has been unconstitutional.
They are basically trying to pass an amendment as a bill. And still nobody voting for it has read it, nor even cares to. The shear stupidity involved watching these idiot Democrats continue to vote on a bill blindly that is changed daily says enough. Then again, people are actually stupid enough in this country to use the word ‘free’ anything provided by the government.
This will go back to the house, come out with a final vote in the senate needing only 51 votes, and a few Democratic senators will be allowed off the hook to vote ‘against’ it. I also love the grandstanding by some saying how this is how a ‘democracy’ works, demonstrating that many in the senate don’t even understand what TYPE of government the United States has in place.
78. Once the Senate has passed a bill, the House must pass an identical bill or else its not the same bill anymore and it will take 60 votes for the Senate to consider it.
# 65 IONE ON DIAPLAY (or) LITTLE MISS MOFFITT GIVES A CIVICS LESSON
===================================================================
# 65 –
If you truly believe that the “uniqueness” of the USA is predicated on the idea that our government should provide its people very limited services, then you must have flunked your civics class in high school and been laughed out of your US Constitution course in college.
In fact, the uniqueness of the USA is that it can make political changes to laws, regulations, parties in power, elected officials and so on without the shedding of blood, armed revolutions or religious or social class considerations.
It is indeed a unique country that can elect a blue-blood Brahmin from Boston (Kennedy) as president who is then followed in office by a distempered Texas cowboy, and later a peanut farmer, a fading movie star, a rhetorically challenged Howdy Dowdy look-alike and so on.
Its uniqueness has nothing at all to do with the “services” the government offers.
Plus, you’re incorrect even here. Most governmentS – in fact the vast majority of them – do not provide ANY concrete services to their people at all.
If you believe the worth and legitimacy of a government is measured by how few services it provides its constituents, then you must really be hootin’ ‘n tootin’ for countries such as Zimbabwe (or, as I prefer to call it, Rhodesia), North Korea and Bolivia.
The health of a nation is much too precious a commodity to be left to the whims of the marketplace. The US has one of the highest rates of birth deaths or whatever it’s called (you know, the mother dies) in the world. I wonder why.
There’s nothing wrong with making a profit but it can’t come at the expense of the health of the public. When it does, the government must step in.
This is what Obama (Porphyrogenitus) has said and what he has done.
This is precisely what happened to the health industry in the US. It became a voracious and predatory “industry” whose least concern was the health of the public. It had no business becoming an industry in the first place.
You can’t equate The HUMANA Corporation with Toys-R-Us. If you do, guess what…..the “government” is going to come knocking on your door.
Anyway, this is all beside the point. The Reid Bill has just passed, so you lost (again).
In your last, you suggested I move out of the country given the fact that it appears I do not understand the origins and foundations of the US.
May I now suggest that you turn on your TV to see where you now fit in in the new scheme of things? If what’s just happened is unbearable to your persona, well, you can always; buy yourself a ticket to…..I don’t know….Zimbabwe, I guess.
PS: (Porphyrogenitus)? Never mind….my little joke. You wouldn’t understand anyways
#81 SodaJerk:
“Anyway, this is all beside the point. The Reid Bill has just passed, so you lost (again).”
Just a wee quibble, but a rather important one, to my mind.
What just passed was the motion for cloture, not the Senate’s full bill.
Of course, if Reid et al want to see it pass, they’ll move immediately to vote the bill itself before the Yeas have a chance to hear the howls from dear ole East Podunk.
And then there’s still the Super Bowl of the Reconciliation process versus the Pelosi Orcs from the wrong side of the dome to get through.
Kinda pathetic how they tried to make a martyr out of Ted Kennedy, wasn’t it?
One wonders that some flunkie staffers weren’t dispatched to Arlington to dig him up and roll his cadaver onto the floor bungee-corded to a hand truck.
Senator Kennedy did us all a paramount favor by the example he set of his faith in government health care in his last battle against brain cancer, did he not?
“The health of a nation is much too precious a commodity to be left to the whims of the marketplace. The US has one of the highest rates of birth deaths or whatever it’s called (you know, the mother dies) in the world. I wonder why.”
If you are truly interested in learning why, then you might want to examine the demographics and income sources of those unfortunate women.
Residing in government housing, collecting public assistance, and living under multiple layers of Federal, State, County and Municipal governments, as well as having such altruistic organizations as ACORN, the Urban League, and the NAACP looking after your interests and welfare seems to be distinctly BAD for your health.
But that could all just be coincidence.
“There’s nothing wrong with making a profit but it can’t come at the expense of the health of the public. When it does, the government must step in.”
Yes, quite. But what happens when it’s the government that is the threat to public health?
Has it ever voluntarily and peaceably stepped out?
““Abortion” is not a constitutional issue.”
What a Maroon! EVERYTHING and ANYTHING is a “Constitutional Isssue”. In practice, a constitutional issue is what ever the Supreme Court says it is. Since you are not a Supreme court justice, your opinion, while legal, doesn’t count.
Abortion is murder. As murder it is a 14th amendment issue. Or do you claim that murder doesn’t affect an American citizens constitutional rights?
ALL Laws in America have roots in the Constitution. When you claim murder is not a constitutional issue, then you are saying murder is not illegal.
Anyone rational would disagree.
#81, SodaJerk:
Well, you got part of it right. The ‘Jerk’ part.
RE: ‘In fact, the uniqueness of the USA is that it can make political changes to laws, regulations, parties in power, elected officials and so on without the shedding of blood, armed revolutions or religious or social class considerations’
Canada can’t? Australia can’t? France can’t? France is famous for it. Are you actually serious???
RE: ‘It is indeed a unique country that can elect a blue-blood Brahmin from Boston (Kennedy) as president who is then followed in office by a distempered Texas cowboy, and later a peanut farmer, a fading movie star, a rhetorically challenged Howdy Dowdy look-alike and so on.”
Perhaps you should check the biographical histories of the Prime Ministers of Great Britain, the Presidents of France, or the rulers of Russia before you make such statements.
RE: ‘Plus, you’re incorrect even here. Most governmentS – in fact the vast majority of them – do not provide ANY concrete services to their people at all.’
EH???? Most cuntries, including the poorer ones, offer some form of socialized medicine to their populace. Do you remember that we are criticized because we are one of the few nations that don’t?
That road network covering Mexico – who do you think financed its building? Do you think peons just brought rocks and dumped them there? Ever seen a clinica in Mexico?
Turkey: Did you know it has a national health system?
Well? Are these services or not?
RE: ‘The health of a nation is much too precious a commodity to be left to the whims of the marketplace.’
Why? Whether the populace eats is left to the whims of the marketplace in many countries. Isn’t it as least as vital?
RE: ‘The US has one of the highest rates of birth deaths or whatever it’s called (you know, the mother dies) in the world. I wonder why.’
Average lifespan and infant and mother mortalities are among the worst measures of the quality of a health system ever devised. These two are dependent on too many other factors. For one, suppose momma is so ignorant that she does not know or does or believe a doctor can influence the outcome. What then?
Or suppose the family is so ignorant they don’t know anything about hygeine?
Or the country has a flood of ignorant, often illiterate illegal immigrants (like the US) whereas the comparison country doesn’t (like many European countries)?
But to blow your comment completely out of the water, the US leads the world in 5-year cancer survival rates. This IS a statistic that is mostly effected by quality of medical care.
RE: ‘This is precisely what happened to the health industry in the US. It became a voracious and predatory “industry” whose least concern was the health of the public. It had no business becoming an industry in the first place.’
Does this mean the gov’t should take over farming? Can it kill 2o million people like the Soviet gov’t did when the farmers resisted?
RE: ‘Anyway, this is all beside the point. The Reid Bill has just passed, so you lost (again).’
Oh, no, honeychile, the battle isn’t over yet. In fact, it’s hardly started.
Porphyrogenitus? You couldn’t mean ‘born to the purple’ as in heredity royalty, could you? Because that’s one one thing the US DOESN’T stand for.
Chunter is cool!
Lefties, you really don’t want some bureaucrat deciding whether you are worth the cost of the necessary treatment; or not.
Remember your mantra,”I am only a chance collocation of subatomic particles- without meaning or value”. And realize that government tax revenues will not be spent on you. Analgesics can be expensive, so prepare to endure your pain.Hospital stays cost lots, so get ready to scream yourself to death at home.
When you can’t get a doctor’s appointment for a sick relative remember it was you who elected the moral morons who devised this obamacare insanity.
When the medicare mom and dad have paid for since 1965 is cut and they end up without any care because their funds have been used to buy votes from non-contributors, be sure to elect these same satanic monsters again and again.
And when they require you to murder(abort) your third child, don’t weep at the dumpster where they dispose of his tiny body; you might miss the chance to run to the polls and further empower the health czar you empowered in the last election.
sodajerk
Generics, as “general welfare”, are to be mitigated by specifics, as the tenth amendment.
You do not really perceive that the mass murder of innocent, unborn infants is not a constitutional issue. You just don’t care whether they are butchered or not.
Please ask yourself for whom the bell tolls.
SodaJerk wrote: “The idea that the US Constitution should play any part whatsoever in determining whether Congress passes a bill or not is sort of……I don’t know what. Absurd is the only word that comes to mind.”
“There’s nothing wrong with making a profit but it can’t come at the expense of the health of the public.
This is precisely what happened to the health industry in the US. It became a voracious and predatory “industry” whose least concern was the health of the public. It had no business becoming an industry in the first place.”
Every thing done by Congress must, by simple definition, be accountable to the Constitution. The moment you try to sidestep that fact, you demonstrate a grave misunderstanding of the intentions of the Founding Fathers. It is the primary reason they limited the role of the federal government. So while I hate to burst anyone’s bubble here, the Constitution does not grant the federal government the right to control an individual’s choices about their health. But that is exactly what this whole “health care reform” legislation intends to do.
While “regulating commerce” between the states can provide for allowing the feds to, say, set regulations for things like the quality of drugs that are sold in ALL states, by its most simple definition it cannot demand every individual pay for something that is then apportioned out to favored House and/or Senate voters. Yes, Virginia, “that’s the way they do it”, however, that still doesn’t make it any more correct than all those Jim Jones followers drinking his Kool Aid just because he told them to drink it.
Notwithstanding the fact that “health” is, in large measure, subjective anyway, striving to place yourself above natural selection is an unachievable goal. No matter what any of us do, one day, some sooner, some later, we’re all going to die. (And our estates then taxed, but I digress.) If anyone thinks there’s anything truly noble in what the Democrats are attempting behind closed doors, consider that while quality of Botox may be considered within the confines of the commerce clause, calling it some kind of “health care” over which there can be debate shows its true absurdity.
The thing with which Liberals are liberal, and with which Conservatives are conservative, is the use or threat of violence against law abiding citizens.