Repealing healthcare: Republican refrain

Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable
-
‘Nil desperandum” — never despair. That is a sentiment that conservatives need to take to heart now that Congress has narrowly passed a bill that simultaneously undermines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-
It takes some ingenuity to add to the costs, inefficiency, and dysfunctions that government has already bequeathed to our health-care system, but the Democrats have proven themselves up to the challenge. Almost nothing about this legislation is free of dispute, but we are convinced that it will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.
-
The Democrats had no mandate to take these steps. In 2008, the president campaigned both against forcing people to buy insurance and against taxing their benefits. The legislation runs counter to the campaign on both points. The president promised to change Washington. He has made its stench more noisome, winning this vote by using every kind of deceit and (legal) corruption, and over the objection of a bipartisan coalition representing most Americans.
-
http://article.nationalreview.com/428841/obamacare-isnt-inevitable/the-editors

Next, we will be hearing the Republican-Libertarian-T.Baggers calling for the repeal of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Shame on them. They can't even accept defeat, gracefully and they want us to choose them to lead our country?!! Are they totally bonkers, totally moronic !!? I am beginning to believe so !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

JUST WHAT WE NEED: BIGGER GOVERNMENT. IT WORKS SO WELL ALREADY!!!
Eight Ways Obamacare Grows the Government
-
It isn’t a complete government takeover. But it’s close.
Every significant change in the massive health-care bill will expand government, without exception.
http://article.nationalreview.com/428650/eight-ways-obamacare-grows-the-government/david-gratzer

Oh, look everyone it's John McSame! You should worry about your own reelection there, my friends.

NOT SO FAST, MY FRIENDS, THIS ISN'T OVER
-
Senate Fight Starts: GOP Says Senate Parliamentarian Will Kill Fix-Its Bill
-
If Republicans can get the parliamentarian to agree with them even once, whatever ultimately passes the Senate will have to go back to the House.
And Democrats in the House quietly admit that its very likely they will have to vote again on the reconciliation fixes at some point down the road.
-
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/03/senate-fight-starts-gop-says-senate-parliamentarian-will-kill-fixits-bill.html

Romney's flip-flops on government-run health care are baffling. He took credit for the passage of statewide health care while Governor of Massachusetts in 2006, saying that he was able to "steal" the issue from Democrats. Then he was mostly silent about his role in that passage when he campaigned for President. Then he flipped again last August when he said "This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state's citizens." Now he blasts the current administration for passing health care reform? Watching Romney talk about health care is like watching a tennis match, with Mitt on both sides of the net.

I do not believe President Obama when he claims the Health Care bill will reduce the deficit.

I do believe that the mandates imposed on the States relating to Medicaid will require massive tax increases at the State and local levels.

I do believe the deficit will go much higher when the Congress adresses the "Doctor fix", which requires 200 billion dollars/

The only way that the Congress can address the shortfalls in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds is to raise additional taxes.

Therefore the only way President Obama and the Democrats can address these additional needs for more money is to raise the taxes on everyone not only those making more than $200,000.

President Obama and the Democrats in Washington are adding a new defination to "tax and spend"!

Just how how out of touch with reality is Mark Silva?
"The midterm elections may well cause some upheaval in the House and Senate, but control of either chamber remains elusive for the GOP."
Mark, many pollsters, independent political watchers like Larry Sabato and even Democratic operatives like Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell believe the Democrats will get tossed big time come November.
Yes, as you note, the Republicans will not a huge majority if the sweep both Houses come November, but a clear mandate by the American people will be given to Washington, D.C., and perhaps this time the Obimbo shaministration would listen (they aren't now as most Americans do not want this health care scam).
Also, several dozen states plan on challenging this scam in court. This bill very well could be unconstitutional. Then come 2012, this crappy change will get booted so hard Obama and his crooked cronies won't be able to sit down for months.

Grandpa McCain, certainly looking old and haggard. Hopefully he will be soundly defeated in November and fade away into oblivion. His concern is phoney and transparent. After he's defeated he can retire to one of his 6 or 7 residences and drive around in one of his 13 or so vehicles while wearing his $400.00 a pair Italian loafers. McCain will also be able to enjoy is free socialized VA healthcare, while wanting to deny all others healthcare. McCain is a traitor and a fraud.

Freeloaders of America, rejoice!

ext, we will be hearing the Republican-Libertarian-T.Baggers calling for the repeal of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Shame on them. They can't even accept defeat, gracefully and they want us to choose them to lead our country?!! Are they totally bonkers, totally moronic !!? I am beginning to believe so !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | March 22, 2010 9:51 AM

To Don Fitzgerald:
The only one that has gone bonkers is you Don Fitzgerald with your idiotic posts.

"John D: Democratic operatives like Pat Caddell"

Uh, John D, Pat Caddell is a paid shill for Fox News. He hasn't worked for the Democratic Party for about 20 years. Fox News likes to identify him as a "Democratic pollster" when they trot him out - it makes them appear more balanced, even when he proceeds to bash Democrats and Democratic positions.

The Republicans won't repeal all the reforms but i can assure that they will campaign for and GUT the individual mandate and fire the 17,000 new irs agents that will be hired to make sure that we have "goverment approved" heathcare policies or recieve fines or jail. This just assured that the Republicans are going to win big in November.

While these nuts are trying to repeal Health Care reform, why don't they also repeal the Voting Rights, Act, the Civil Rights Act, and throw in women's right to vote, and for good measure let them repeal laws outlawing slavery.

Then the GOP would be true to themselves, and to their small minded supporters.

Finally the Dems stop torturing themselves!
The Repugs must be in a panic now.
The American people will look at this bill and see no:
-Gubbmint take over of healthcare
-no public option
-no socialized medicine
-no death panels
-no Maoist plot
-no Nazi plot

They will figger out, 'hey, Boner and McConnman were lying!'

In fact, their may be blowback due to it's weakness. (Possible down side for the Dems) But even that would show what liars the Repubs are. What we have here is weak insurance reform most of which kicks in in '14.

The real reason for panic in the Pube ranks is that the main subject will become 'bank reform' from now until the run up to election day. This is a distinct disadvantage for the Pubs, as they will now be forced to defend Wall St. and the banks right out in front of the TeaBaggers and the American people. In fact, the real face of the TeaBaggers will be revealed. (They like the banks, really)

This changes everything (except healthcare, of course, not much change there). It looks like the Dems saved themselves.

As weak as the bill is, at least they have a foundation on which to build.

It took some doing, but President Obama finally achieved bipartisanship in Washington--with the bipartisan OPPOSITION to this bill.

Flatliner FITZ must singing this old redone Soviet Classic:

OBAMA ANTHEM LYRICS
All hail the messiah
Obama, Obama
The path to the new socialist motherland
Our savior, our savior
Obama, Obama
The leader more famous than Lindsay Lohan
Bow down and praise the one
Give him your money and your guns
Give us a country
That makes your wife proud
Lord Barry heal the bitter ones
White and Clinging to faith and to guns
Hope for the change of the hope of the change!

Sing it to the old Soviet National Anthem.

John D,

Here's the fait of the Republics once the indies with two cells to rub together figure it all out.

(The Dems are in the ships, the Repubs are on the ground now. Remember, 'it was a Democrat war'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek

the r-con heads are exploding today because the lost and cannot accept the democratic process anymore than they can accept a non-white in the Oval Office.
While they are entitled to their thoughts and opinions, no matter how small minded, ugly and bigoted they may be, their hideousnes must no longer be reflected in public policy in this country, and deny as they will, their hate and bigotry makes up the foundation of their belief system.
The enemies of healthcare reform, the GOP, really shot themselves in the foot over the Stupak Amendment by trying to manipulate the right to life movement, the same way the they manipulate the teabaggers. Maybe the GOP can explain why their republicon national committee offered abortion coverage to it's employees, despite their own " pro-life " platform.
Color that the untimate in hypocricy.
Kudos to Bart Stupak !!!!!

There was only one thing rejected more than the idea of healthcare....and that is the face on the video at top. Anyone who thought Palin was VP material has a serious mind desease.

The fight over this could leave Dems vulnerable this November. And I certainly expect Republican gains, if not actually re-capturing a congressional majority.

But the same thing happened 16 years ago. And the whole "tea-bagger" movement sounds alot like Gingrich's "contract on America". Clinton had low approval (even lower than Obama) and in November 1994 congress flipped from a Democratic majority to a Republican one. But then....the economy got better and Clinton still cruised to victory in '96.

Same goes for Reagan. His approval ratings after his first year were actually much lower than Obama's, too. So history is on Obama's side regarding re-election.

As this debate fades, and the economy gets stronger, while it may not be enough to help Democrats in November, Obama should be in good shape in two years.

I also think that a lot of independents or "swing voters" prefer a balanced government. So losing the democratic majority might be a good thing for Obama. Because if there is a congressional republican majority in 2012, I doubt the independents will want to give the White House back to republicans, too.

Back in the early 2000s, when the RepubliCANTS controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, what did the offer the American people in the manner of Health Care Reform? Answer: NOTHING! Yet now they want to run for elections on a platform of repealing HCR for American citizens.
*
*
Truly the party that has lost touch with reality.

McCrackers should be happy with the new HCR. Now his trophy heiress won't have to suffer the embarrassment of stealing pain killers from her own charity.

I do believe that the loony liberal Democrats in Congress now have even a bigger problem. They set the rules on how the CBO could score this bill. Basically it was accounting the Enron way but, now people who are not being told what to count and what not to count can have a look at the numbers. They will not double count items like the CBO had to do. They will be able to look at the student loan portion and layout that is where all the savings is coming from. They will not take the money that was coming in for Social Security and say it is for healthcare like the Democrats are. The Democrats can no longer say the money coming in for Medicare's long-term care is for healthcare. One thing the Democrats did not want anybody to know is about the variables the CBO pointed out. And how if not all of them fall into line with their estimate than cost will increase. Some of the taxes will begin this year but not in the service will begin for over four years that's another little trick. Because if the services began at the same time as the taxes the real deficit it will cause would show up on day one. Not to mention all the money that will be pulled out of the economy by the top earners in this country because of how the loony liberals are taxing them heavily. And for you loony Libs out there if you do not thank all taxes are going up I have a bridge in Chicago I'd like to sell you.

For $726 409 Bart Stupak sold out his "pro-life" stance. What is the 2,000 year inflated value of 30 pieces of silver? That's hypocracy.

Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. Republican gum-flapping and right-wing media outrage will keep us all entertained for months to come, but the fact is the passing of HCR is the GOPs Waterloo. They're done. Cooked. They're not going to overturn anything and they're not going to come out on top in November. And the teabagger wing...they're done too.

TODAY’S REPUBLICANS ARE AMERICA'S ENEMY WITHIN

Republicans ARE practicing seditious DEMAGOGUERY and anti-democracy OBSTRUCTIONISM intended to destabilize our economy for purposes of political exploitation.

Republicans AREN'T making a sincere effort to STOP the bleeding THEIR incompetent leadership and failed policies created. Instead, they're using inflammatory lies and accusations as a smokescreen to conceal their subversive agenda, which is to cause President Obama and America to fail so they can blame Democrats for the consequences of THEIR calamitous mismanagement.

Republicans ARE preposterously professing that THEIR disgraceful political WHORING had nothing to do with the banking, real estate, stock market and employment catastrophes that resulted.

Republicans ARE trying to hamstring Democrats to prevent them from repairing the damage caused during a Republican presidency that was irresponsibly enabled by Republican Senators and Representatives.

Republicans ARE offering ridiculous arguments meant solely to disrupt and prevent progressive change. They'd rather divide America and create political gridlock than endure the political consequences of effective Democratic governance.

Republicans AREN'T the LOYAL OPPOSITION; they ARE the ENEMY WITHIN whose mercenary personal priorities have eroded their moral and ethical standards to the point that duplicity and betrayal are their preferred modus operandi.

It's one thing to advocate their conservative beliefs; it's another thing entirely to willfully sabotage America's government because a successful Democratic presidency would not be vulnerable to the greed, fears and hatreds that have produced and sustained the radical Republican anti-government corporatism and anti-Christian faux theocracies that are poisoning and crippling American society.

Is anybody interested in seeing video of "Compassionate, Constitutional Conservate TeaBaggers" mocking and throwing money at a Parkinson's sufferer?? Perhaps a TeaBagger can explain to those of us humans in shock and disbelief, what throwing money at a Parkinson's sufferer and hurling epithets at lawmakers has to do w/ "Consititional Conservatism"

HEY QUIPPY, CLICK YOUR HEELS THREE TIMES, TOO WHILE YOU'RE AT IT. THE DEMS WILL TAKE A HUGE HIT IN NOVEMBER; THAT'S A FACT.
*
Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah. Republican gum-flapping and right-wing media outrage will keep us all entertained for months to come, but the fact is the passing of HCR is the GOPs Waterloo. They're done. Cooked. They're not going to overturn anything and they're not going to come out on top in November. And the teabagger wing...they're done too.
Posted by: Quippy | March 22, 2010 1:06 PM

"writerofwrongs", I know it's early in the week, but I'm awarding you the weekly prize for most bizarre play of the race card. Just so you know, the rest of these comments are not aimed at you. I would hate to be labeled a “racist” by a race-baiting liberal.

---------

There will be no repeal. Once BO signs it, he will have veto power over any repeal legislation. Even if by some miracle the GOP takes both houses in November, they will not have a supermajority to override a veto. It is not even mathematically possible for the GOP to go from 41 to 67 in the Senate in the mid-terms, so this talk is silly.

---------

This bill will start to expand coverage (in four years) through Medicaid expansion and subsidies. What it doesn't do is bend the cost curve on medical costs or insurance premiums. It also does nothing to shore up Medicare, as any savings from that program are earmarked for other spending. We still have those fundamental problems, and at least in my view, spiraling cost and Medicare’s looming insolvency have always been the crux of the problem.

---------

I heard Pelosi say something interesting in a speech. She said health care is a "right", no longer a privilege. A right? Guaranteed by whom? The federal government? That is an interesting theory, and one I have seen espoused by progressives/liberals. The Bill of Rights contains protections against actions of the federal government. It basically tells us what the federal government cannot do. From what I’ve seen, progressives seem to advocate for another “Bill of Rights” that would contain a list of things that the federal government must do for its citizens. Health care is obviously one, but that is a strange place to start. What about food? Housing? Employment? Does everyone have a right to have the federal government provide them a home? A chicken dinner every night? A job? It is the logical conclusion to the progressive line of thinking. The same progressive arguments that apply to health care coverage expansion (e.g., how can the richest country allow people to go without health care?, etc.) would apply even stronger to food and/or shelter. Are those "rights" too? That the federal government must supply?

--------

The problem with this ideology is that our federal government was never designed to provide cradle to grave services. It was designed to be a government of limited, specifically enumerated powers. Not a welfare state. I think it was Ben Franklin who said "[w]hen the people figure out they can vote themselves money, it will be the end of the republic."

--------

The federal government has no money. I don't mean that in the sense of the ridiculous debt we are in. I mean it in the sense that the government does not produce anything. The government only has income from what it confiscates from its citizens at the end of the figurative bayonet - you either pay this tax or we take your freedom. So when one argues that someone has a "right" to something that must be provided by the federal government, what they are really saying is that they have a right to their fellow citizens’ money/property. This is a difficult sell, although it is pulled off fairly well by progressives. They actually get indignant about it. I want my welfare, and I want it now. I have more of a right to your property than you do. I don't care if you earned it.

------

The first step to convincing someone of this line of thinking is guilt, which is one that I can't believe any rational person buys. We live in a capitalist system based on competition. The goal is to maximize profit legally. But the first step to progressive theory is to make successful people feel guilty. You don't really deserve that money. How dare your company turn a profit. This is of course ridiculous. There is no shame in turning a profit legally. Indeed, that is the point of being in business. Evidence of this "guilt tripping" is widespread. Listen to a progressive even mention the word "profit" and they can't even do it without a sneer. Another recent example is the rhetoric used for a Medicare tax on capital gains in the HCR bill. The liberal talking point de jour is to refer to this as a tax not on capital gains, but on "unearned" income. It is much easier to make people feel guilty about making money, and much easier to justify taking it from them, if it is "unearned".

--------

The second step to the nanny state, after making productive people feel guilty, is to trick the working class into thinking that money is being taken from them. As if it were a zero-sum "pie"; that if Bill Gates didn't make a billion dollars last year, that money would have gone to Joe Sixpack. More nonsense, but along with the guilt, creates the foundation for the proposition that it is the role of the federal government to "even things out" or to “spread the wealth around”.

---------

I don’t like big government. I don’t trust big government. I think they have overreached. I will never support the idea that this bungling, inefficient, corrupt, bankrupt entity that we call the federal government has the support of the people, Constitutional authority and/or the ability to hand out entitlements and turn this country into a nanny state, e.g., France-west. The distinction between the US and old Europe, especially in terms of opportunity and personal responsibility, I believe are part of what makes this country great. Progressives see these distinctions as fatal flaws. I don’t think this country is defined by the fringes, although they are the ones that seem to come to the forefront once their respective party reaches power. I think there is a silent majority of people in this country that were quite angry with the Bush Administration, particularly about Iraq, and basically threw out the GOP in 06 and 08. But the default choice they got, the BO Administration and the Pelosi House, were not what the American people bargained for. I think this country has been pushed too far to the left, and will be ready to push back come November, and vote for candidates that are in favor of smaller government.

KEEP FIGHTING MCCAIN! It is necessary we stop this man and his side kick Pelosi, from continuing down the big government, big spending, socialistic mentality. McCain has been true to his state, to his values and to the Americans in general, fighting for our rights.

Herbie H:
(snipped)

"writerofwrongs", I know it's early in the week, but I'm awarding you the weekly prize for most bizarre play of the race card. Just so you know, the rest of these comments are not aimed at you. I would hate to be labeled a “racist” by a race-baiting liberal.

~~~~~
did your head explode last night?
once you locate the pieces and glue everything back together, please explain your long-winded and bizarre post.

The RIGHT to health care is just as consitutionally protected as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was in the declaration of independence.

What conservatives don't get...is exactly how can our nation work, play, support military activities, schools, etc.....if we don't have our health?

It falls on the government to ensure a healthy society. As the saying goes "if you don't have your health, you don't have anything". The same goes for the nation as a whole as well as the indivdual. Therefore, the government has a constitutional (and moral) obligation to assist with creating a healthy society, since our economy and defense our inherently linked to having a healthy public to carry out the necessary functions of society.

Herbie,

You make a great point from Speaker DimBulb's speech "health care is a right". Do you think a "right" can be rationed by the gov't? Can our freedom of speech be "rationed" by the federal gov't? Freedom of Religion (not freedom from religion as the loons seem to think), Freedom of the Press?

When the gov't turns down a patient for health care treatment are they disallowing one of its citizens of a right? If you don't think that it won't happen, it already does by Medicare. Medicare disallows more medical procedures tahn any private insurance company does.

Under the democratic plans, so much for our rights.

Freeloaders of America, rejoice!

Posted by: KVM | March 22, 2010 10:53 AM

Actually, people will pay a premium under this insurance plan. The free loaders are the ones who CAN afford insurance right now but use the emergency room for a doctor's office. You and I foot the bill for those who do not have insurance through higher premiums and hospital costs. Next year it may be $36 for an aspirin when you stay in a hospital instead of $18 if something had not been done.

But people like you don't want to look at this rationally...you just believe all the rhetoric/spin that is spewed against it.

Most people are just one catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy. Take it from someone who has been there...

I am not sure which is more appealing; the fact that our drug companies will have to minimize their research? the fact that our govt is taking over everything? the fact that the rich pay for the poor? the fact that our care is going to change? the fact that money does not fall from the sky? hmmm, no wonder McCain is fighting, this govt thinks they can do whatever they want at the expense of us, the hard working taxpayers. Thank you McCain for keeping them honest!!

* * * * *
Posted by: Davey S | March 22, 2010 4:48 PM
.
I have to admit that you have me at a total loss, Davey. I’ve been a lawyer for 26 years now. I have read lots and lots of cases on constitutional law. I have read the Federalist Papers, Elliot’s Debates (which is the record of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the various state ratification conventions), and a number of scholarly treatises on the subject of Constitutional Law (including Storey’s work, Cooley’s “Constitutional Limitations,” and Lawrence Tribe’s tome on the subject, just to name a few). However, I have yet to find in my travels a single mention of a constitutionally protected “right to health care.”
.
I’ll tell you the problem I have with this. You see, the Supreme Court has traditionally identified two different kinds of rights protected by the Constitution. The first set, of course, includes all of those rights that are explicitly protected by the Constitution, such as can be found in Article I, sections 9 and 10, and in the various provisions of the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. For instance, I have no trouble figuring out that everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law because the Fourteenth Amendment says so.
.
Then there is the other set of “constitutionally protected” rights that are not explicitly included in the Constitution. But in identifying those rights, the Supreme Court has said those rights are “deeply rooted in our society’s history and tradition,” “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” and “such that neither liberty nor justice could exist if they were sacrificed.”
.
I’m sure you know that the ‘right to health care,’ as you describe it, is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. From my travels, I can also tell you that the courts have never identified “health care” as an un-enumerated right by the Constitution. It has never been identified as a “right” in the traditions or history of our country. Today, we still have to pay for it, and don’t get it if it is not paid for. This has always been the case. Nor are there any cases that say the “right” to health care is either necessary to ordered liberty or justice.
.
Moreover, if healthcare were a right, then why did the government have to pass a law to provide access to it? A person with a right to something normally gets to sue to force others to respect that right without some law. And, even then, the freshly minted health care bill on the way to Obama’s desk doesn’t really provide any “right” to health care, because people still have to pay for it. And, to the contrary, the law tends to make health care a “duty” rather than a “right,” because people will suffer monetary penalties or worse if they fail to purchase health care insurance. Is it really a “right” if someone still has to pay for it or gets punished for not exercising it?
.
So, honestly, could you please tell me where you got the idea that health care is a “constitutional” right? I am totally at a loss to understand your reasoning on the subject. Enlighten me.

Oh boy, two RHINOs are gonna fight to repeal the bill. I'll bet.

McCain should be happy. When he gets amnesty, the illegals will be all set with free healthcare.

John W.

So, you are saying our country would NOT be served by having a public policy that helps keeps us healthy?

That doesn't make any sense to me.

I suppose you feel the "civil rights" act is unconstitutional, too. Since the government created that law also.

I just feel, as I said, the government has the same duty to protect the well-being of our nation. And that "the common defense" should apply to protecting us from disease as much as protecting us from "enemies of war".

I don't think this bill is perfect by any means. And I agree I don't like the part that "forces" people to purchase insurance. I would have preferred a fully funded "public option".

However, there is something that perhaps we can agree on. I would like to see tax breaks for physicians that perform "charity care". (perhaps there are some already, I'm not sure. But if there are, maybe it could go farther) Doctors used to do it all the time. But when the collusion and corruption of insurance companies increasingly got in the way of Dr.'s and patients, causing costs to get out of control. Many Dr.'s don't have the means to perform their charity work of the past.

Instead of your "lecturing" based on your alledged expertise in constitutional law, how about some ideas. And by "ideas" I don't just mean "tort reform".

Now watch the fun begin when the Senate refuses to get involved in any "reconciliation" of its bill. Once the bill is signed into law, there is no legal requirement for the Senate to consider ANY changes to the law.

JW,
I would say 'the right to healthcare' is not disallowed by the constitution. Is Social Security?

'... promote the general welfare' would point to it.

Where does it specifically say you can short stocks, keep a cat, must have capitalism? It doesn't even mention an economic system.

Forcing people to buy insurance? We do now for cars. If you owe money on your house you must buy fire ins.
We pay for the people without health insurance today, under the Republican system, through cost shifting. At least under the new system they would pay something.

CM,

'... promote the general welfare'

Do you know the difference bewteen the words "promote" and "provide"?

Does General Welfare include free cable?

Dave S:
.
You asked, “So, you are saying our country would NOT be served by having a public policy that helps keeps us healthy?”
.
Nope. I didn’t say that. I never would say such a thing. There is, however, a big difference between a “constitutional right to health care” and a public policy that helps keep us healthy. Public policies can be repealed. Constitutional rights require an amendment to the Constitution to erase them.
.
Then you stated: “I suppose you feel the ‘civil rights’ act is unconstitutional, too. Since the government created that law also.”
.
Nope. I never said such a thing, and I never even suggested it. The government can create a lot of laws that have no constitutional problems. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment give Congress the specific power to enact civil rights legislation to further their purposes. However, before you go asking about the ‘civil rights’ act, you should specify which one you are talking about. There are several of them, the first one being enacted in about 1871. I have different views about each of them.
.
Next you state: “I just feel, as I said, the government has the same duty to protect the well-being of our nation. And that ‘the common defense’ should apply to protecting us from disease as much as protecting us from ‘enemies of war.’”
.
Those are noble ideas, or feelings, but they don’t happen to represent the law. Until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, with few exceptions, the federal government didn’t even have any particular duty to protect American citizens against most wrongful acts committed by state governments. Nor were the states bound to the limitations in the federal Bill of Rights. And, further, the “common defense” language and the phrase “general welfare” were never intended to serve as a general mandate to do anything and everything for all the citizens of the United States. James Madison gave an extended discussion of this issue in The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 41.
.
What you have expressed is a common belief that the federal government is a general government that has the power to do anything. However, the frame of government in our Constitution specifies a federal government with limited powers. Even the Tenth Amendment states that the federal government is limited in its powers to those that have been delegated to it. This is because the constitutional government was designed to allow the States to do most of the governing, including caring for the health, safety and welfare of their citizens. The federals were supposed to defend the country, regulate trade, and do all of the other stuff the states could not effectively perform by themselves. The Constitution has changed somewhat since it was first ratified, but it hasn’t changes enough to erase this original model. What has happened is that the federal government has taken on more power than was ever intended. And it has proven incompetent to do all the extra-constitutional tasks it performs.
.
You might think, “so what?” But then you would have to ask yourself: I f those in charge of the federal government can’t respect the limits the Constitution places on its power, then how can I trust the same group to respect my rights guaranteed by the same Constitution? And that is a fair observation because, in fact, the federal government has, over time, eroded (or attempted to erode) many of the rights enshrined in the Constitution. And that’s no joke.
.
I will finish where I started. I explained to you my doubts concerning your assertion that health care is a “constitutional right.” I didn’t engage in this explanation to show off my expertise in constitutional law (because it was hardly much of a showing in that regard). The explanation was intended to show you that I have a bona fide problem with that assertion. That way, I hoped, I might induce you to explain your reasoning. You have said many kind and thoughtful things, but you never answered my question.

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | March 22, 2010 9:51 PM
.
C.Morris:
.
The Constitution places no limitations on individual citizens, except for its provision that: they follow the laws that are enacted pursuant to the Constitution (that is, in conformity with it), they pay their taxes, and they do not commit treason against the country. People are otherwise presumed to be free to think or do as they wish unless they are constrained by some intelligible law that doesn’t otherwise conflict with the constitution. In which case, it doesn’t have to say you can short stocks, keep a cat, or have capitalism. You are free to do these things unless the law says otherwise.
.
The Constitution prescribes modes of action for the federal government and, to a lesser extent, state governments. It also places numerous limits on both federal and state governments, but mostly the federal government. Even those provisions we think of as “constitutional rights” are basically negative limitations on the power of governments to intrude upon our private behavior. For instance, the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from preventing me from speaking in a public forum. But, because I am not a government, I can eject any would be political speakers from holding a rally on my privately owned front lawn without violating their First Amendment rights.
.
I must disagree that the Constitution mentions no economic system. It both mentions and protects the basics of our economic system. The bedrock of any market based economy is the right to possess and dispose of private property. Outright confiscation of property, without due process of law pursuant to a valid enactment, is forbidden by the Constitution. Even when the government seeks to exercise its power of eminent domain, it must pay the owner the fair market value of property it seeks to take for public use. Similarly, the Constitution prohibits the states, and to a lesser extent the federal government, from imposing burdensome duties and imposts, making money that damages commerce, or laws that impair contracts or discriminate against the commerce of one state in preference for another. The explicit power of Congress to regulate interstate and international commerce is also recognition of a market-based economy. It’s all in there. It may look like the decorations rather than the Christmas tree, but its all there.
.
The analogy to purchasing auto insurance, when compared to the individual mandate to purchase health care insurance, is a poor one. No one must own a car or a home, in which case no one has to purchase insurance for them. There is always the option of selling the house or the car if one finds the insurance requirements to onerous. The same is not true with mandatory health care insurance. What’s my option in that case? to stop breathing? Unlike the laws of many states concerning auto and home insurance, we’re not even given the option of self-insurance. Unlike the situations involving home and auto insurance, there are simply no voluntary alternatives to the health care insurance mandate.
.
And furthermore, if you thought about it, you would see that mandatory health insurance effectively coerces some people to transfer their property to a private third party for the purchase of a good/service they do not want and which they may well find entirely useless. Forcing someone to divest themselves of property constitutes a “taking” of property under the Constitution. Forcing someone to divest themselves of property for the benefit of a private party is a taking of private property for private use. That is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, and was universally condemned by the United States Supreme Court from its earliest days. This is just one problem.
.
Some may say: “But it’s just a tax.” No, it’s not. It is a mandate first, and a tax only in default of fulfilling the dictates of the mandate. Supreme Court cases are clear that Congress cannot regulate behavior indirectly by way of taxation if it can’t regulate the behavior directly. Thus, the alternative tax isn’t constitutionally valid either.
.
In addition, the fact that Congress has elected to force everyone into a market in order to regulate private behavior is another ground to assert that Congress has overstepped its commerce clause powers. The power to regulate commerce depends on the existence of some “commercial” behavior. The non-purchase of health care insurance, which does not involve any interface with commerce, is not commercial behavior. It is no behavior of any kind. My mother, who is now dead, would be very surprised to find out that her non-purchase of health care insurance was some kind of economic behavior. The idea that the mandate is some form of commercial regulation is ludicrous and pernicious. Next time, the feds could force us all to buy cars, or houses, or anything else in the name of regulating commerce. If we grant Congress this unprecedented power now, then Congress has finally figured out how to make itself a government without limitations.
.
I don’t feel like discussing Social Security. It is a horrible mess and a terrible disappointment on many levels. It is, in any event, a discussion for another day.

If the question you said I "didn't" answer was from your earlier post: "So, honestly, could you please tell me where you got the idea that health care is a “constitutional” right?"

I believe the phrase "Provide for the general welfare" as written in Sec. 8 of the constitution is broad enough to include health care.

Now, would you answer one of the questions I previously stated. Would you be opposed to tax breaks (or even some reimbursement) by the federal government for Doctors and hospitals that provide "charity care" for those who struggle to afford medical treatment?

* * * * *
Posted by: Davey S | March 23, 2010 1:40 PM
.
Again, these are nice sentiments, but they do not reflect the current state of the law. Even if we assume that Congress has the power to enact legislation pursuant to its power under the “General Welfare Clause,” it does not translate into a “constitutional right.” Let’s start of by defining a “right.” A “right” is a power to demand that someone act or refrain from acting in a particular manner. For example, to say that I have a First Amendment right to free speech means that I can demand that governments refrains from hindering my ability to speak whenever I choose to speak. Most of the “rights” guaranteed by the Constitution weren’t created by it. The pre-existed the Constitution and acquired protection from it.
.
Therefore, to say there is a “right” to healthcare means that a person would have the right to demand it from the government or one’s fellow citizens. To additionally claim there is a “constitutional right” to healthcare means that something in the constitution gives one the power to demand it. Therefore, returning to the starting point, if we assume Congress has a “power” to hand out healthcare coverage under the “General Welfare” language in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, it doesn’t mean the American people can force Congress exercise that power in any particular fashion. As long as it remains within Congress’ discretion to do something or not, it is not a “right.”
.
Therefore, in all seriousness, if we had a “right” to health care, there would have been no need for this health care reform bill. We could have simply demanded access to health care services, demanded the government pay the bills and/or, failing that, sue the government to force it to grant us these things. The fact that this health care reform bill was at all deemed necessary undercuts the notion that health care is a right, much less a constitutional right. Even after the bill, it is not a right. It is, at best, an entitlement (and entitlements can be extinguished). At worst, it is a duty (as I previously explained) with potentially serious penalties.
.
Just remember this: Not all good laws are constitutional; not all bad laws are unconstitutional; not all laws that ought to exist do exist; and not all bad laws have vanished. These are unfortunate facts, but facts all the same.
.
To answer your question: I would clearly support tax breaks for doctors who provide charity care to those struggling. That’s a no-brainer. We give tax breaks for all kinds of charitable contributions now. I’m not so sure about reimbursements, especially if we are talking about the federal government. Granting reimbursements would basically create an ad hoc Medicare program on top of Medicare and the newly hatched health care reform bill. I’m not sure the government (or even we) could afford that.

John W,

Nice answer, but mine is esier to remember :)

Terry,
Under this bill the gubbmint is not providing any insurance. The public option was dropped long ago. They are promoting it through subsidies to help pay for it and requirements for people to buy.
I would prefer a single payer NHI system. Much simpler. Everybody pays.
But to suggest that this bill is providing insurance is wrong.

JW,
How do you find the time?

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | March 23, 2010 8:41 PM
.
1. I think fast and type faster. Rarely is there a post without at least one typo.
.
2. No. 1 is possible because I repeat myself a lot.
.
3. I sometimes suffer from insomnia.
.
4. Sometimes I have extra time between projects. That, and the Swamp sometimes helps clear the palate after a particularly boring brief.
.
But seriously, I don't really spend that much time at it. See No. 1, above.