What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls
Posted using ShareThis
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
PresBO's flawed sales job in NY Times
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
August 16, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Why We Need Health Care Reform
By BARACK OBAMA
OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.
These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.
I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.
There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.
First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.
Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.
Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.
We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.
Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.
This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.
The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.
But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.
Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.
I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.
In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.
That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.
In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.
Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
August 16, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
Why We Need Health Care Reform
By BARACK OBAMA
OUR nation is now engaged in a great debate about the future of health care in America. And over the past few weeks, much of the media attention has been focused on the loudest voices. What we haven’t heard are the voices of the millions upon millions of Americans who quietly struggle every day with a system that often works better for the health-insurance companies than it does for them.
These are people like Lori Hitchcock, whom I met in New Hampshire last week. Lori is currently self-employed and trying to start a business, but because she has hepatitis C, she cannot find an insurance company that will cover her. Another woman testified that an insurance company would not cover illnesses related to her internal organs because of an accident she had when she was 5 years old. A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn’t known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died.
I hear more and more stories like these every single day, and it is why we are acting so urgently to pass health-insurance reform this year. I don’t have to explain to the nearly 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance how important this is. But it’s just as important for Americans who do have health insurance.
There are four main ways the reform we’re proposing will provide more stability and security to every American.
First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job.
Second, reform will finally bring skyrocketing health care costs under control, which will mean real savings for families, businesses and our government. We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies that do nothing to improve care and everything to improve their profits.
Third, by making Medicare more efficient, we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors instead of enriching insurance companies. This will not only help provide today’s seniors with the benefits they’ve been promised; it will also ensure the long-term health of Medicare for tomorrow’s seniors. And our reforms will also reduce the amount our seniors pay for their prescription drugs.
Lastly, reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable. A 2007 national survey actually shows that insurance companies discriminated against more than 12 million Americans in the previous three years because they had a pre-existing illness or condition. The companies either refused to cover the person, refused to cover a specific illness or condition or charged a higher premium.
We will put an end to these practices. Our reform will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of your medical history. Nor will they be allowed to drop your coverage if you get sick. They will not be able to water down your coverage when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. And we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. No one in America should go broke because they get sick.
Most important, we will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups, preventive care and screening tests like mammograms and colonoscopies. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end. It makes sense, it saves lives and it can also save money.
This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.
The long and vigorous debate about health care that’s been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It’s what America’s all about.
But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.
Despite what we’ve seen on television, I believe that serious debate is taking place at kitchen tables all across America. In the past few years, I’ve received countless letters and questions about health care. Some people are in favor of reform, and others have concerns. But almost everyone understands that something must be done. Almost everyone knows that we must start holding insurance companies accountable and give Americans a greater sense of stability and security when it comes to their health care.
I am confident that when all is said and done, we can forge the consensus we need to achieve this goal. We are already closer to achieving health-insurance reform than we have ever been. We have the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association on board, because our nation’s nurses and doctors know firsthand how badly we need reform. We have broad agreement in Congress on about 80 percent of what we’re trying to do. And we have an agreement from the drug companies to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The AARP supports this policy, and agrees with us that reform must happen this year.
In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain. But for all the scare tactics out there, what’s truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing. If we maintain the status quo, we will continue to see 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Premiums will continue to skyrocket. Our deficit will continue to grow. And insurance companies will continue to profit by discriminating against sick people.
That is not a future I want for my children, or for yours. And that is not a future I want for the United States of America.
In the end, this isn’t about politics. This is about people’s lives and livelihoods. This is about people’s businesses. This is about America’s future, and whether we will be able to look back years from now and say that this was the moment when we made the changes we needed, and gave our children a better life. I believe we can, and I believe we will.
Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obamacare constitutionality challenge
How would a challenge be structured to any potential health care law that might be passed? Is it possible to obtain a legal stay until the final outcome is determined? I think this may be a potential way to begin challenging any law that appears to be unconstitutional/unauthorized by the constitution.
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=106694
DOCTOR'S ORDERS
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say?
'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all'
Posted: August 14, 2009
11:10 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=106694
Sunday, August 16, 2009
DOCTOR'S ORDERS
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say?
'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all'
Posted: August 14, 2009
11:10 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily
 |
Is a federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional?
Some argue that under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to regulate or subsidize health care.
Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center, told WND that if citizens want to understand whether health care is constitutional, they must first understand the function of the Constitution.
"The best way to look at it is that it doesn't apply to you," he said. "It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government, and it sets the boundaries of what government is supposed to do."
Enumerated powers
In debating whether health care is constitutional, Boldin said citizens must look to the founding document to 1) determine whether the power is specifically listed there, or 2) if there isn't a specific power listed, look to the "Necessary and Proper Clause," or Article I, Section 8, clause 18.
Article I, Section 8, specifically lists the following powers granted to Congress:
- 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;
- To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Get "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws" now!
- To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
- To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
- To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
- To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
- To provide and maintain a Navy;
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
- To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
 Signing of the U.S. Constitution, Sept. 17, 1787 (painting by Howard Chandler Christy, 1937) |
'Necessary and proper'
Boldin said the last power, dubbed the "Necessary and Proper Clause," does not grant the federal government unlimited authority, but gives it some leeway for certain things – only as long as those actions apply directly to the Constitution's specifically enumerated powers.
He said a good example of a necessary and proper power in action is the authority to establish post offices listed in Clause 7.
"Article I Section 8 gives the federal government the power to build post offices," he said. "But it doesn't specifically state that it can go out and buy land to build post offices or hire labor to build post offices. Those actions would be necessary and proper and, more importantly, lesser than the main power. So, if they were only able to create a post office, but they couldn't buy the land or the tools or the labor to do it, they'd never get the post office built."
Boldin continued, "When you think of what is necessary and proper to carry out a specifically listed or enumerated power, it has to meet two criteria: It has to be directly applicable, and it also has to be lesser than the enumerated power."
'General welfare'
 James Madison |
Some critics point to the "general welfare" stipulation in Clause 1 as a key provision granting the federal government the authority to regulate health care. However, in The Federalist No. 41, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," argued that "general welfare" in Clause 1 does not give the federal government unlimited power, rendering each of the following clauses redundant.
Madison asked rhetorically, "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
He continued, "Nothing is more natural nor more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."
Madison sought to address concerns of critics who warned that the "general welfare" clause opened the door to unlimited abuse.
"The Federalist Papers were public arguments to try to convince people to ratify the Constitution," Boldin said. "They weren't just writing about the general welfare clause for the hell of it. There was a real concern by people who were opposed to the Constitution that the general welfare clause would give this unlimited power to the federal government to do whatever it claimed would 'support the general welfare.'"
Referencing the "general welfare" concerns, Madison even accused critics of "labour[ing] for objections" by "stooping to such a misconstruction."
"It wasn't just the opponents of the Constitution saying there had to be limits to this," Boldin noted. "It was the proponents of the Constitution who were saying, in order for it to be general welfare, it must apply to one of the enumerated powers."
No federal authority
Because the power to regulate each citizen's medical care is not included among enumerated powers, he said, the federal government does not have the authority to impose a single-payer system.
"You have to look to the Constitution and ask, 'Is health care listed?'" Boldin said. "No. It's not."
"Is health care directly necessary and proper to carrying out any of the listed powers such as creating post offices and national defense?"
He said critics might argue that to have a good national defense, the United States must make sure that everyone is healthy.
"But that would not fall under any definition of what's considered necessary and proper," he said.
Furthermore, he cited the 10th Amendment, which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
He said that while the government has overstepped its bounds in many cases and used the federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment, that provision must not be ignored.
"No one has ever repealed the 10th Amendment," he said. "They do it by judicial fiat, but it still exists."
(Story continues below)
'Equal Protection Clause' of 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Some proponents of federal health care have argued that every citizen must be treated equally, and the current health care system is an example of gross inequality that runs contrary to principles of the 14th Amendment. They say wealthy people are able to afford and obtain medical treatment while the less fortunate are left to suffer when they are unable to pay for an operation or treatment.
"That argument would lead to a crazy slope where you could say everyone should have the exact same car," Boldin said. "Then we should have the same guarantee of transportation to get to work, the same guarantee of food and shelter. Should we all have equal homes? I mean, if someone wants to make that argument, they have to make some serious changes to the Constitution to authorize it."
He said regardless of their political affiliation or position on health care, citizens must ask themselves whether they truly want a government that has no limits.
"No matter what side you are on, you don't want a government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants because it becomes dangerous," Boldin said. "This is what the Founding Fathers and the entire founding generation had to fight against – a king who could set his own rules and make them up as he goes. Rules may not be a wonderful thing, but when you allow government to do whatever it wants, you are guaranteeing tyranny."
Amending the Constitution
Some critics say the Constitution was meant to be a "living document" that would adapt to changing times, and since health care is a modern-day issue the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, they argue, the federal government must step in and provide a single-payer system.
With regard to the "living document" argument, Boldin said that is what the amendment process is for. However, he said, lawmakers won't propose a health care amendment because they know it will not pass.
"They just don't propose it because, if they did, that would make it a much more serious discussion," he said. "The discussion wouldn't just be about helping the poor people – which is obviously a good motive for the people who really believe that."
He continued, "Instead, the discussion would be about the proper role of the government. Should it be involved in this at all?"
States move to nullify federal health care
Activists and state legislators are now focusing their efforts on state governments as a way to resist federal health care "reform" and stop federal usurpation of state rights, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Lawmakers in as many as 10 states are considering or seeking to propose bills and resolutions to nullify federal health care in their states.
The Tenth Amendment Center explains nullification:
When a state "nullifies" a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or "non-effective," within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
 Florida state Sen. Carey Baker |
"Nullification goes all the way back to fighting for free speech in 1798 when the federal government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts," Boldin said. "Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions saying, you can't do this; we're not going to abide by this in our states. Jefferson specifically said the people in our country are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. The same holds true today. We're not subjects."
Recently, the issue of nullification re-emerged when nearly two dozen states mounted a resistance to the 2005 Real ID Act. Maine and Utah led the way by passing resolutions to refuse incorporation of federal security features into state driver's licenses and identification cards. After meeting fierce state resistance to its plans, the federal government delayed implementation twice and later announced it would "repeal and replace" the controversial law.
"The federal government wasn't able to do anything," Boldin said. "It wasn't able to threaten – nothing. It had to back off, and now it's getting rid of it."
 Florida state Rep. Scott Plakon |
Now states have turned their attention toward nullification of federal health care "reform" should it pass Congress this year.
On July 27, Florida State Sen. Carey Baker and State Rep. Scott Plakon filed H.J.R. 37, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent Florida citizens from being affected by federal health "reform."
The proposed amendment prohibits "laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system" and permits "a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services."
It also exempts "persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and fines for paying or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services" and permits the "purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems. …"
If approved by the state legislature, Florida residents may vote on the amendment in 2010.
Likewise, the state of Arizona has joined the growing resistance to federal health "reform."
 Arizona state Rep Nancy Barto |
On June 22, the Arizona state Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve H.C.R. 2014, known as the Health Care Freedom Act. Arizona residents will vote on the amendment sponsored by Arizona Rep. Nancy Barto in 2010.
This week, Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot announced he will propose a constitutional amendment to shield state residents from federal health "reform."
Louisiana's health chief, Alan Levine, told The Advocate that the legal debate should get interesting.
"The 10th amendment to the Constitution ensures states have the right to conduct their affairs except for those things specifically ascribed to the federal government," he said. "Health care is not one of those things the federal government has the 'right' to impose on states."
 Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot |
Boldin confirmed that The Tenth Amendment Center has been in contact with sources in seven other states that have indicated their legislatures will see similar health care nullifications as early as 2010.
In a July interview with the Mark Davis Show, Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated that his state may join the showdown with the White House over federal health care.
"I think you'll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no' to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care," Perry said. "My hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I'm certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."
Boldin said he expects the movement to grow as people realize they can take their concerns to their own state governments
"Once the ball gets rolling, I think people will recognize that you can bang your head on the federal doorstep year in and year out and fail because they don't listen to us in D.C.," he said.
"This is what Jefferson, Madison and most of the founders recommended – this idea that there's a balance of government. When the federal government gets out of control, you have to look to your state governments to protect you against it."
He referenced the recent surge in protests at health care town hall meetings across the nation.
"If these were all focused on state governments, we would probably see 10 or 20 nullification bills in states already," he said. "And the health care program would be dead in the water."
Ultimately, Boldin said, it's not up to the federal government to provide health care for the nation.
"This is an issue that the federal government shouldn't be touching at all."
Constitutionality of Obamacare
How would a challenge be structured to any potential health care law that might be passed? Is it possible to obtain a legal stay until the final outcome is determined? I think this may be a potential way to begin challenging any law that appears to be unconstitutional/unauthorized by the constitution.
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=106694
DOCTOR'S ORDERS
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say?
'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all'
Posted: August 14, 2009
11:10 pm Eastern
WorldNetDaily
This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=106694
Sunday, August 16, 2009
DOCTOR'S ORDERS
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say?
'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all'
Posted: August 14, 2009
11:10 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily
|
Is a federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional?
Some argue that under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to regulate or subsidize health care.
Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center, told WND that if citizens want to understand whether health care is constitutional, they must first understand the function of the Constitution.
"The best way to look at it is that it doesn't apply to you," he said. "It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government, and it sets the boundaries of what government is supposed to do."
Enumerated powers
In debating whether health care is constitutional, Boldin said citizens must look to the founding document to 1) determine whether the power is specifically listed there, or 2) if there isn't a specific power listed, look to the "Necessary and Proper Clause," or Article I, Section 8, clause 18.
Article I, Section 8, specifically lists the following powers granted to Congress:
- 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;
- To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Get "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws" now!
- To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
- To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
- To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
- To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
- To provide and maintain a Navy;
- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
- To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
- To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
- To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
Signing of the U.S. Constitution, Sept. 17, 1787 (painting by Howard Chandler Christy, 1937) |
'Necessary and proper'
Boldin said the last power, dubbed the "Necessary and Proper Clause," does not grant the federal government unlimited authority, but gives it some leeway for certain things – only as long as those actions apply directly to the Constitution's specifically enumerated powers.
He said a good example of a necessary and proper power in action is the authority to establish post offices listed in Clause 7.
"Article I Section 8 gives the federal government the power to build post offices," he said. "But it doesn't specifically state that it can go out and buy land to build post offices or hire labor to build post offices. Those actions would be necessary and proper and, more importantly, lesser than the main power. So, if they were only able to create a post office, but they couldn't buy the land or the tools or the labor to do it, they'd never get the post office built."
Boldin continued, "When you think of what is necessary and proper to carry out a specifically listed or enumerated power, it has to meet two criteria: It has to be directly applicable, and it also has to be lesser than the enumerated power."
'General welfare'
James Madison |
Some critics point to the "general welfare" stipulation in Clause 1 as a key provision granting the federal government the authority to regulate health care. However, in The Federalist No. 41, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," argued that "general welfare" in Clause 1 does not give the federal government unlimited power, rendering each of the following clauses redundant.
Madison asked rhetorically, "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
He continued, "Nothing is more natural nor more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."
Madison sought to address concerns of critics who warned that the "general welfare" clause opened the door to unlimited abuse.
"The Federalist Papers were public arguments to try to convince people to ratify the Constitution," Boldin said. "They weren't just writing about the general welfare clause for the hell of it. There was a real concern by people who were opposed to the Constitution that the general welfare clause would give this unlimited power to the federal government to do whatever it claimed would 'support the general welfare.'"
Referencing the "general welfare" concerns, Madison even accused critics of "labour[ing] for objections" by "stooping to such a misconstruction."
"It wasn't just the opponents of the Constitution saying there had to be limits to this," Boldin noted. "It was the proponents of the Constitution who were saying, in order for it to be general welfare, it must apply to one of the enumerated powers."
No federal authority
Because the power to regulate each citizen's medical care is not included among enumerated powers, he said, the federal government does not have the authority to impose a single-payer system.
"You have to look to the Constitution and ask, 'Is health care listed?'" Boldin said. "No. It's not."
"Is health care directly necessary and proper to carrying out any of the listed powers such as creating post offices and national defense?"
He said critics might argue that to have a good national defense, the United States must make sure that everyone is healthy.
"But that would not fall under any definition of what's considered necessary and proper," he said.
Furthermore, he cited the 10th Amendment, which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
He said that while the government has overstepped its bounds in many cases and used the federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment, that provision must not be ignored.
"No one has ever repealed the 10th Amendment," he said. "They do it by judicial fiat, but it still exists."
(Story continues below)
'Equal Protection Clause' of 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Some proponents of federal health care have argued that every citizen must be treated equally, and the current health care system is an example of gross inequality that runs contrary to principles of the 14th Amendment. They say wealthy people are able to afford and obtain medical treatment while the less fortunate are left to suffer when they are unable to pay for an operation or treatment.
"That argument would lead to a crazy slope where you could say everyone should have the exact same car," Boldin said. "Then we should have the same guarantee of transportation to get to work, the same guarantee of food and shelter. Should we all have equal homes? I mean, if someone wants to make that argument, they have to make some serious changes to the Constitution to authorize it."
He said regardless of their political affiliation or position on health care, citizens must ask themselves whether they truly want a government that has no limits.
"No matter what side you are on, you don't want a government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants because it becomes dangerous," Boldin said. "This is what the Founding Fathers and the entire founding generation had to fight against – a king who could set his own rules and make them up as he goes. Rules may not be a wonderful thing, but when you allow government to do whatever it wants, you are guaranteeing tyranny."
Amending the Constitution
Some critics say the Constitution was meant to be a "living document" that would adapt to changing times, and since health care is a modern-day issue the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, they argue, the federal government must step in and provide a single-payer system.
With regard to the "living document" argument, Boldin said that is what the amendment process is for. However, he said, lawmakers won't propose a health care amendment because they know it will not pass.
"They just don't propose it because, if they did, that would make it a much more serious discussion," he said. "The discussion wouldn't just be about helping the poor people – which is obviously a good motive for the people who really believe that."
He continued, "Instead, the discussion would be about the proper role of the government. Should it be involved in this at all?"
States move to nullify federal health care
Activists and state legislators are now focusing their efforts on state governments as a way to resist federal health care "reform" and stop federal usurpation of state rights, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Lawmakers in as many as 10 states are considering or seeking to propose bills and resolutions to nullify federal health care in their states.
The Tenth Amendment Center explains nullification:
When a state "nullifies" a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or "non-effective," within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Florida state Sen. Carey Baker |
"Nullification goes all the way back to fighting for free speech in 1798 when the federal government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts," Boldin said. "Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions saying, you can't do this; we're not going to abide by this in our states. Jefferson specifically said the people in our country are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. The same holds true today. We're not subjects."
Recently, the issue of nullification re-emerged when nearly two dozen states mounted a resistance to the 2005 Real ID Act. Maine and Utah led the way by passing resolutions to refuse incorporation of federal security features into state driver's licenses and identification cards. After meeting fierce state resistance to its plans, the federal government delayed implementation twice and later announced it would "repeal and replace" the controversial law.
"The federal government wasn't able to do anything," Boldin said. "It wasn't able to threaten – nothing. It had to back off, and now it's getting rid of it."
Florida state Rep. Scott Plakon |
Now states have turned their attention toward nullification of federal health care "reform" should it pass Congress this year.
On July 27, Florida State Sen. Carey Baker and State Rep. Scott Plakon filed H.J.R. 37, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent Florida citizens from being affected by federal health "reform."
The proposed amendment prohibits "laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system" and permits "a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services."
It also exempts "persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and fines for paying or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services" and permits the "purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems. …"
If approved by the state legislature, Florida residents may vote on the amendment in 2010.
Likewise, the state of Arizona has joined the growing resistance to federal health "reform."
Arizona state Rep Nancy Barto |
On June 22, the Arizona state Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve H.C.R. 2014, known as the Health Care Freedom Act. Arizona residents will vote on the amendment sponsored by Arizona Rep. Nancy Barto in 2010.
This week, Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot announced he will propose a constitutional amendment to shield state residents from federal health "reform."
Louisiana's health chief, Alan Levine, told The Advocate that the legal debate should get interesting.
"The 10th amendment to the Constitution ensures states have the right to conduct their affairs except for those things specifically ascribed to the federal government," he said. "Health care is not one of those things the federal government has the 'right' to impose on states."
Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot |
Boldin confirmed that The Tenth Amendment Center has been in contact with sources in seven other states that have indicated their legislatures will see similar health care nullifications as early as 2010.
In a July interview with the Mark Davis Show, Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated that his state may join the showdown with the White House over federal health care.
"I think you'll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no' to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care," Perry said. "My hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I'm certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."
Boldin said he expects the movement to grow as people realize they can take their concerns to their own state governments
"Once the ball gets rolling, I think people will recognize that you can bang your head on the federal doorstep year in and year out and fail because they don't listen to us in D.C.," he said.
"This is what Jefferson, Madison and most of the founders recommended – this idea that there's a balance of government. When the federal government gets out of control, you have to look to your state governments to protect you against it."
He referenced the recent surge in protests at health care town hall meetings across the nation.
"If these were all focused on state governments, we would probably see 10 or 20 nullification bills in states already," he said. "And the health care program would be dead in the water."
Ultimately, Boldin said, it's not up to the federal government to provide health care for the nation.
"This is an issue that the federal government shouldn't be touching at all."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
