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.
