One of the fundamental portions of the ObamaCare proposals is the mandate… everybody will be required to purchase insurance or be punished for not having it. In some bills, businesses must offer insurance to employees, and subsidies are offered to those who cannot afford it. Most lawmakers admit that ObamaCare won’t work without that essential element… otherwise, why would young, healthy people choose to buy health insurance and thereby pay for those who use their insurance a lot, i.e. the elderly? Lacking the mandate, ObamaCare bleeds enough red ink to explode our national debt virtually overnight.
I have serious reservations about such a provision… has the federal government ever before required Americans to purchase a good or service? The answer to that question is no… as the CBO observed back during the Clinton attempts to pass HillaryCare.
The government claims that they have the authority to do so because of the “interstate commerce” clause in the US constitution… that’s the overused peg on which Congress always hangs their hat when they want to do something the Constitution never envisioned them doing. In most such cases, the relationship to interstate commerce is tentative. In THIS case, it’s nonexistent.
How can the interstate commerce clause allow the federal government to force us to buy insurance when each state regulates its own insurance and prohibits the purchasing of insurance across state lines? If we don’t engage in interstate commerce when we buy insurance within the state, and we don’t… how can that clause be used to justify this?
The interstate commerce clause simply doesn’t apply in this situation, and Congress therefore has no power to require participation in their ObamaCare scheme. But they’ll do their best to pass it anyway and force us to challenge it in court.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently said that there is no "veracity" to the argument that the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force individuals to buy health insurance. If that is the case, then the Federal government has an equal power to force us to participate in other programs and purchase other goods… there will be no limit to what we can be forced to do. How would you like the government to have the power to FORCE you to buy a car in their Cash 4 Clunkers program? Or maybe force you to have an abortion, receive medical treatment you do not want, or even participate in a 401K program… all by government fiat. If gas prices get too low, they could require that we all MUST buy five gallons of gasoline a week in order to stabilize prices.
Somehow that just doesn’t sound right to me.
It should be easy to see that the idea of our government requiring us to purchase a good or service, especially one so heavily regulated or outright operated by the government, runs contrary to the concepts of individual freedom and liberty… the principles this country was founded on.
I don’t understand why the liberals currently in charge are so dead-set on ignoring the Constitution… I just can’t get my mind around the kind of person who would abandon the very foundation of our entire country and system of law and order.
The Constitution of the United States is primarily a document that limits government and seeks to protect the rights of citizens… so how can our government claim that it doesn’t forbid their plans?
Our government now claims the power to control what we buy and when we buy it… if we don’t need protection from that, then what else is there?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Exactly! You have put your finger precisely on what everyone should be considering...the United States Constitution...a document that those in the current administration and prior administartions have ignored. If American citizens fail to stop this they will bear responsibility for the loss of their own personal freedom and liberty as well as the destruction of the very document our nation was founded upon.
ReplyDeleteI'm compelled to cite this blog entry in an email that I will send to many recipients as soon as I have time to do it, and I hope those folks will forard it to many others.
Great post, Matt!
Thanks, Don. Although I mostly use news reports and opinion pieces to reflect what's happening in the world so I can comment on it, occasionally I do a pure opinion piece to bring out a point I think is being overlooked. And I think this is one such point.
ReplyDeleteThe White House and Congress is claiming power that makes them virtually omnipotent and omnipresent in our lives... and that's a bad thing. If they can force us to buy THIS product, what's to stop them forcing us to buy others? Nothing. And if that's the case, where are the limits on federal power?
Why are you lying about the mandate Matthew?
ReplyDelete"everybody will be required to purchase insurance or be punished for not having it" - NOT TRUE
Those making under a certain amount will have their insurance subsidized. Everyone knows this, but Matthew has decided to lie to you to try make his point which also somehow equates the mandate to forced abortions. Come on! Get real Matthew, and stop trying to scare people.
I stand by my statements. As I stated in the opening paragraph, most bills have some sort of subsidy specified for those who can't afford the insurance... but with or without the subsidy, the mandate means if you don't have insurance you pay a fine.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty clear.
As to your other point, if the government can force us to purchase one good or service, why can't they force us to purchase another? It's a precedent being set here, and it is one that could be widely applied.
Now, Truthseeker, I had no idea you wanted your commenting ban lifted so badly that you would create a second ID and try to sneak it by. You were banned for a variety of reasons that I won't go into in public. I let this one and a few others be posted because, though they were hostile, they were mild for you... linguistically speaking.
But I want to tell you this.
If you wish to discuss your ban, I am more than happy to do so. Send me an email... one that allows us to have a discussion, and we'll talk about it. Until this discussion takes place and we reach an agreement, you are banned. And I mean YOU, no matter the ID under which you post.
I hate to suggest it...but one of the first legal fights after this passes (if it does)...will be some guy who says he has the right to suicide and wants to deny himself all medical care....thus no medical care, period. He'll even claim it's a religious right that goes hand in hand with suicide. This entire mandate requiring everyone to play by these rules will end up being tossed by the Supreme Court in the end (just my humble opinion).
ReplyDeleteAs for the Truthy dude...you ought to be fair and give him just a 90-day time-out so he might learn from his errors. Soon or later, I think he will come to a moment of reality. The fact that he keeps coming back...means he has a curiosity.
Ripley, I agree with you on the legal challenges. I can think of several grounds to challenge the individual mandate, most of which would have a good chance of winning. The one you cited has already been adjudicated... individuals have the right to refuse medical treatement. Challenge it on that grounds and the case stands a good chance of overturning the individual mandate.
ReplyDeleteAs to seeker... there is more going on here, several reasons why I will not simply revoke his ban. I am open to discussing it with him... but he hides behind anonymity and refuses to discuss things. If he send me a non-anonymous email, I am more than willing to discuss the situation with him and work something out. Until then, though, the ban stays in effect.