Healthcare reform has been a major political issue for the last two decades. The Clinton Administration discussed and attempted to reform the healthcare system in 1993 to no avail. This week the House of Representatives passed sweeping legislation that could change the face of American healthcare at the most fundamental levels. The political fallout of the passage of this legislation could be detrimental to the Democratic Party during the 2010 mid-term elections, as many voters believe that their elected representatives have simply ignored the will of their constituents. My 13 year old son asked me tonight, “what’s the big deal, doesn’t this help people?” While this question appears quite innocuous, it also cuts to the heart of the issue, “What’s the big deal?” For me, the answer is fairly simple; the encroachment of the Federal Government over its citizenry (as laid out in this bill) is simply inexcusable. I spent more than a decade in the medical field and have seen first-hand the over-burdened Emergency Departments of local hospitals, and while one could argue the need for healthcare reform, the current bill far oversteps Congressional authority to institute such reform.
A number of states have filed suit in an effort to enjoin the Federal Government from enacting this legislation, a copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here. While various arguments have been waged concerning the legislation (from the expense of the bill to the increase of the individual tax burden); the idea that the Federal Government could compel an individual citizen to purchase health insurance or face punishment is appalling. This singular issue violates every notion of Federalism envisioned by the framers of our Constitution. I admit that I am a staunch originalist and firmly believe that any powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government are reserved to the individual states. I can say with absolute certainty that nowhere in the United States Constitution is health insurance listed as an absolute right. The Tenth Amendment protects the individual states from an overbearing Federal Government, but in this case this pesky Amendment has been simply ignored. If the Democrats in power are so convinced of the Constitutionality of this bill, I submit that they should invoke Article V of the Constitution and call a convention which would require a two-thirds vote of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment regarding the right to health insurance. Of course such action will never be undertaken as recent polls have shown the unpopularity of this bill across the nation. One could also argue that this legislation is a clear violation of the Commerce Clause, but I will not address that issue in this piece because the violation of Federalism is of far greater concern in my mind.
I believe this issue will reach the Supreme Court of the United States, and some legal scholars doubt the validity of the argument presented by the various States Attorneys General in their suit, but in my mind the validity is clear, an overbearing Federal Government must be stopped from infringing upon the individual rights of a citizen. Furthermore, I believe that the President’s admonition of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union Address over political contributions, could come back to haunt him when this case does reach the high court. I believe that five of the nine justices are quite likely to take the side of Federalism over the side of a stronger federal government, which could spell disaster for this Administration’s defining legislation.
While I believe that some reform of the healthcare system is proper and necessary, my belief in the individual rights of the citizenry is much stronger. I have the absolute right to decide when, where, and what to spend my money on, and the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to compel me to spend that money on health insurance. Any argument to the contrary is simply ignorant and inconsistent with the United States Constitution.
Looking forward to your perspective David.
“While I believe that some reform of the healthcare system is proper and necessary, my belief in the individual rights of the citizenry is much stronger.”
I could not agree more. What is absolutely amazing to me is that you have an entity (the Federal Government), that has bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and every other entitlement program they touch, yet they have credibility on an ever larger entitlement. The very notion defies reason and logic. They should have been laughed off the public stage at even suggesting they could “fix” the system.
Out of curiosity, how does “I have the absolute right to decide when, where, and what to spend my money on” comport at all with the Constitution? Why wouldn’t Article 1 Section 8 (Powers of Congress) give the government the ability to tax for “the general welfare” in the same way that it allows the government to tax for “general defense?”
David,
First off, welcome to Blog4History.com!!
Kudos on your 1st couple of pieces. I read this with great interest…one can hardly swing a dead cat without hitting someone discussing health care. I was talking with a friend last evening, and he asked my opinion about the recent vote. Not wanting to tip my hand and not knowing where he stood, I told him that, frankly, I didn’t know enough about it to give a well-educated opinion, but I did know there were strong feelings on both sides of the debate (as there always seems to be nowadays). I suspect you would have been more direct.
He knew even less about it than I do, which is scary. Your simple statement that “the encroachment of the Federal Government over its citizenry is simply inexcusable” probably resonates with most people, but also indirectly references a greater problem. If the Federal Government is truly running roughshod, do the citizens that elect these men and women really know it? Both sides of the health care debate have presented sound-bites and talking-point snippets for more than a year, but I’m sure only a fractional percentage of Americans (a percentage that, sadly, doesn’t include me) really know the nuts and bolts of what must constitute a massive tome. Most Americans have supported (or lambasted) a piece of legislation about which they can only talk at a very high (read: very vague) level, usually just repeating the talking points of whichever position they favor, with increasing volume and stridency as the conversation continues.
For those that take your stance against Government-imposed health care, you probably look across the landscape and see two kinds of people that cause you great frustration: those that greatly desire strong government intervention in any situation, and those that don’t ever bother to investigate what their elected officials are doing. The “big government” types will always be around, but it’s this second group of people that are the biggest threat to limited government. The Federal Government can most easily “encroach inexcusably” when the large portions of the citizenry are apathetic.
My friend said (not a direct quote), “I’m not so sure health care is all that big a deal. I mean, we’re forced to have auto insurance in order to drive a car. Is this all that different?” I understood the line of reasoning, but also had a sneaking suspicion that the two were not really related at all. I probably should have at least enough insurance to protect others when I’m exercising my privilege (not “right”) to propel 3,500 pounds of steel and aluminum over concrete, rain, and snow at 70+ mph.
Your take on how SCOTUS could play a role is most provocative. The Court has been accused of being transformed (or transforming itself) into a political playground, and a potential showdown over one of the most politicized pieces of legislation in recent history is bound to turn one-half of the country into ravenous wolves against it.
Anyways, I’ll stop here, and I apologize for being so windy. But I appreciate your strong stance on the issue, and the fact that you can back it up with experience in the medical field. In a world of mindless shrieking and political rhetoric, your voice is one with some credibility to back it up.
You and Chris appear to make a very good team.
Regards,
Joel
Who says they care about the Constitution?
Healthcare has become another single issue that divides people.
Regarding its constitutionality?
“Congress has the power to lay, collect taxes, duties… provide for the common good Defense, and welfare of the United States.
There are lots of issues here:
1. Some people are upset by the deficit being so great and the impact this heath care legislation will have. You can hear it when they say “what will happen to the next generation.”
There are those who also see this as a way for the country to become weaker as other countries purchase our debt..;
There are those who se it as the population being forced to give up their rights to choose.
There are those who view it as an example of the federal government especially the executive branch taking more power.
As someone who had over $ half a million dollars worth of medical bills due to a CVA, of which I had zero risk factors. .I am biased toward a health care bill that offers catastrophic. No one should lose their house or all their savings due to an illness.
What I am amazed at is how poorly the government has explained the goal of designing a health care package. What did they want to achieve? They also did a lousy job explaining the legislation after it was passed. Much of what I heard was it is 4 thousand pages long. A little fast on the facts. They combined the senate and house versions and rounded it of to the higher number. I actually read the bill and watched hours of the debate on C-Span. For I am interested. Living in Maine there is no choice of carrier and they would now never accept me.