ObamaCare Has Not Won Yet

Supporters of the Democrats’ health care bill may think that now that it’s been signed into law, it’s safe from further attack. Don’t be too sure.

Many elements of this bill are of questionable constitutionality, the most notable of which being the “Individual Mandate.”
This mandate is entirely unprecedented. Never before has Congress mandated that private individuals agree to a contract with another private entity just because they’re alive. Certainly, the purchase of a car is mandated to coincide with the purchase of car insurance. However, the purchase of a car is understood by past courts to be a form of commerce, which falls under the “Commerce Clause” of the US Constitution. Thus, the real question at hand is this: is the non-purchase of health insurance a form of “commerce” that can be regulated under the Commerce Clause? If the power isn’t specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, the 10th Amendment can, and will, be applied to deem it unconstitutional.

Some less-informed Democratic Congressmen have also tried to justify the mandate under the “General Welfare Clause.” However, this clause only states that Congress may “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” to provide for the general welfare. It does not state that Congress may force private individuals to make contracts, and it actually specifies that all taxes laid by Congress “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” making the use of tax as punishment of those without health insurance entirely unconstitutional.

So is this “Individual Mandate” unconstitutional? I certainly think so. I think it’s only a matter of time before it, along with other questionable components, are struck down in the Supreme Court.

Advertisements

In a World Where the Government Provides Health Care to Everyone, Nobody Gets Abortions

Liberals and socialists across the country are celebrating their victory in the passing of this health care legislation. It may not be exactly what they wanted, but it’s a first step towards nationalized health care. But what if they had gotten that final goal in this piece of legislation? What if this had been the legislation that created a national health care plan which enrolled everyone?

Well, if that had been the case, then I say that nobody but the rich would be getting abortions in this country from here on out.

See, in order to pass this legislation, Obama had to make a deal with anti-abortion Democrats:

In the late afternoon, he made the decision to take one more chance. He agreed to issue an executive order declaring that the healthcare measure would not change the existing ban on federal funding for abortions. That brought over Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), leader of the last Democratic holdouts, even though the order risked infuriating some of Obama’s most important supporters.

In all their lust for a national health care plan, liberals seem to fail to realize that when the government controls the funding for a service, they control that service, and they get to decide what services are provided. When the government controls health care, all abortions will be paid for out-of-pocket.

You see, an unintended effect of all this progressivism is that the more dependent we become on the government to provide our needs, the more control the government will have over our lives. The more they pay for us, the more decisions they can make for us. This is always true.

And so I make a plea to every citizen in this country:

Do you want to give the government that kind of power over all of our lives?

Treasurer of Massachusetts Bashes ObamaCare

…And goes even further, saying that it will “threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years.”

Did I read that right? Timothy Cahill, a Democrat (until just recently), the Treasurer of Massachusetts no less, is saying that the similar legislation passed in Massachusetts 4 years earlier “has nearly bankrupted the state.” This man, who (I repeat) runs the Massachusetts Treasury, says that the only reason Massachusetts is not yet bankrupt is the state is “being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive [the legislation] through.”

How much more damning can you get? The one empirical test of ObamaCare (from back when it was RomneyCare) on US soil, and the state’s own Treasurer is saying that without the politically-motivated federal aid, they wouldn’t be able to make ends meet because of it.

Consider also the fact that the cost to individuals in Massachusetts has been skyrocketing as well, and this piece of national health care legislation is absolutely devastated. Under such a plan, health care costs everyone more.

How can anyone still support this folly? How can anyone still support the Democrats’ efforts to ram this thing through Congress with little regard for the Constitution?

Comprehensive, Systematic Takeover of Everything I Think I Can Run Better than You Act.

In Congress, the Democrats are pushing a lot of bills that expand the President’s capacity to set standards for and control management of quite a few major components of the economy and individual lives. There’s HR 4173, which would allow the President and his appointees to liquidate any company they deem a “danger” to the economy. There’s HR 3590, which would make the purchasing of insurance deemed “satisfactory” by the President and his appointees mandatory. There’s HR 2454, which would allow the President and his appointees to determine how much carbon dioxide you can emit. There’s the proposal to institute national age-based education standards which would be set by…you guessed it- the President and his appointees.

I have to ask: If the Democrats feel it’s so important to expand executive power in all these sectors, why not just combine it all into one sweeping bill that accomplishes all of their goals in one fell swoop? Here’s my proposal for a draft of the bill:

Comprehensive, Systematic Takeover of Everything I Think I Can Run Better than You Act.

Sec 1000. Definitions

a) Entity – Any corporation, business, organization, group, individual, or practice which is determined by the President to not be running the way the President deems to be of most benefit to everyone.

Sec 1001. Extension of Presidential Powers

a) At the President’s request, a committee shall be formed to investigate the status, actions, structure, and any other qualities of any Entity. This committee will deliberate with the President to determine what corrective actions are necessary. Corrections shall be applied immediately upon the request of the President.

b) Actions by the committee shall be subject to judicial review, evaluating the extent to which the actions are actually corrective.
———–

There. Simple, sweeping, and effective. So, to all the statists out there, would you support such a bill? What happens when the Republicans take the White House? Do you still support it then?