Obamacare Is an Attack on Liberty, Prosperity, and Health
Posted by Dirk L. Hudson on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:47:42 PM


I oppose any bill that provides for government-controlled health care for the following reasons:


(1) It is totalitarian (as interfering with our individual self-determination) and contrary to our basic rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence (to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"),

(a) the right to life includes that of senior citizens (whose health care would inevitably be rationed and denied by bureaucratic “death panels” to those citizens whose lives are deemed less valuable to the all-powerful State); it also includes that of unborn children (whose genocidal murder would inevitably be tax-payer subsidized in any government-controlled health care plan).

(b) the right to liberty includes that of choosing the health care plan of one’s preference or even no health care plan at all (perhaps paying directly for treatment as needed) without having a plan imposed by the all-powerful State (under threat of imprisonment for not conforming).

(c) the right to pursuit of happiness includes the right to enjoy in retirement the health care plan that one chose and paid for during one’s career, without having it stolen by thieving politicians and bureaucrats.


(2) It is unconstitutional, as going beyond the limited powers delegated to the federal government, and as a violation of the ninth and tenth amendments, respectively creating a presumption of liberty, and reserving remaining powers to the states and the people. (See U.S. Constitution, Amendments IX and X.)

Under the ninth amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This creates a presumption of liberty as against the federal government going beyond the powers specifically delegated to it and intruding into the private sector so as to limit the fundamental (albeit generalized) rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence, “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (including one’s right to privacy in health care decisions, and to the contractual acquisition and use of property such as private health insurance).

Under the tenth amendment, “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” Thomas Jefferson explained the pre-eminence of the tenth amendment in 1791: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: . . . To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

It is also unconstitutional for the following reasons:

(a) "Provision” for the general welfare only authorizes taxing and spending for the limited purposes specifically listed under that generic head, and does not include other types of (non-fiscal) legislation for other (unlisted) purposes. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8.)

(b) Interstate “commerce” means exchanges of products, not the manufacture (or internal production or drafting) of such goods. To be “interstate” these exchanges must occur across state lines (something that government does not allow at present with respect to health insurance). In that context, the flow of commerce is to be kept free (i.e., “made regular”) across state lines, rather than be subjected to governmental restrictions or interference. Accordingly, the exchange (sale and purchase) of private health care products must (like other “commerce”) be allowed to be accomplished freely (i.e., with regularity) across state lines without governmental impediments. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8.)

(c) “Sweetheart deals” or special exemptions for favored groups (such as the inhabitants of select states - as in the “Louisiana purchase,” “Cornhusker kickback,” etc., and members of select labor unions) violates the constitutional requirement of budgeting for the “general” welfare. (See U.S. Const, Art. I, Sec. 8.) It also violates the equal protection guarantee which the Supreme Court has read into the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. (See U.S. Const., Amend. V.)

(d) Mandated purchase of insurance by consumers, and restrictions on health insurance prices (regardless of risk) are not only constitutionally unauthorized, but also violate the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment. (See U.S. Constitution, Amendment V. )

(e) [discussed but apparently not used due to intimidation of hold-outs such as Stupak]: “Reconciliation” without separate passage of the same exact bill by both houses is unconstitutional. Bicameralism requires both houses of Congress to pass identical bills before presentation to the President. Thus any attempt to “reconcile” different bills passed by different houses must produce a version that passes each house separately. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7, Clause 2.) Here bills differing in content each passed only one house. “Reconciliation” applies to numerical differences in budgetary items, not to policy differences between two bills different in content. Thus, there is nothing to “reconcile.”

(f) [discussed but not used]: “Deeming” the Senate Bill passed in the House of Representatives without a direct vote on the same exact bill passed in the Senate is likewise a violation of the Bicameral Provision (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 7), and also of the accountability requirement of Section 5 of that article, "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 5.) Thus, those who vote for “deeming” shall be held responsible for voting for passage.


(3) It is undemocratic

(a) in that the health care bill (of over 2,500 pages of legalese) is too lengthy and complicated to be absorbed with understanding by the People’s elected representatives who will vote on the bill without having read it;

(b) in that the bill creates at least 111 new agencies of unelected bureaucrats who will add their own regulations without responsibility to the voting public

(c) as subordinating our health care to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, who arbitrarily assess the comparative value to the all-powerful State of a given citizen's life, and via "death panels" limit their access to future care;

(d) Moreover, buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."


(4) It is unequal (as exempting those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).


(5) It is economically disastrous (as taking over one sixth of the economy, adding $6trillion in costs over a ten year period and, via deficit spending, bankrupting the nation and depriving future generations of a prosperous life-style). Even Obama acknowledged, "Yes, it's one-sixth of the economy, but we're not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html

Barack Obama's health care plan ensures spiraling costs and will convert health insurance companies into cost-plus health reimbursement utilities, or else bankrupt them completely. Health insurance as we know it (think home/auto/life) will no longer exist.


(6) It is regressive in that it undermines the world's finest and most progressive health care system (by rationing medical care and depriving senior citizens of critical operations, by discouraging and decreasing supply of prospective future physicians, while increasing demand for trivial ailments, and it also would slow down medical research into new cures and treatments (as advocated by Obama's medical advisers such as David Blumenthal).

This month (February, 2010), Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is in the United States for heart surgery. In coming to the United States for health care, Williams is no different than other Canadian leaders (such as Lougheed, Chretien, Bourassa, Stronach etc.). How ironic that the very health care system which is the envy of the world should be under attack in the United States!


(7) It is inherently corrupt since

(a) it steals from the taxpayer and gives the loot to tax-subsidized parasites, and

(b) since expansion of government power vastly expands opportunities for bribery for monopolistic government favoritism, e.g., as to preferred patients, as to preferred businesses (e.g., “big pharma”) contracting with the government for goods and services, as to preferred doctors, and as to preferred access to government jobs).

We have already seen this bribery in action in Harry Reid’s unconstitutional sweetheart deals known as the “Louisiana purchase,” the “Cornhusker kickback,” the “Gator-aid,” SEIU exemption, etc., converting senators from being faithful representatives of their constituencies into Obama-Reid prostitutes (no doubt using unspent “stimulus” money). The stench of corruption once confined to Chicago and Washington, D.C., now wafts across the nation.


(8) It is secretive and insincere

(a) since even Democrat Senators other than the devious and corrupt Harry Reid are not allowed to see the infinitely complex and lengthy bill (some 2,000 pages of legalese), but are expected to vote for it (sight unseen, on pure faith) by Christmas, in violation of their duty to know what they are voting on, and

(b) since the pressure is that the bill be passed by the end of the year despite the fact that it will not take effect for several years so that its (foreseeable) detrimental impact is not associated with its con-artist promoters who rammed it down the throats of the unwilling public that they supposedly represent.

(c) As Speaker Pelosi said on March 9, 2010: “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it . . . “ (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576 .)


(9) It is fraudulent as providing “health care” in name only.

First, “death panels” for senior citizens and patients with costly pre-existing conditions are inevitable:

(a) as a result of demand outpacing supply, with resultant rationing,

(b) as advocated by Obama advisers such as Robert Reich and “Dr.” Ezekiel Emanuel, and

(c) as already seen in Oregon (e.g., the case of Barbara Wagner denied anti-cancer medication), the U.K., and in other government controlled systems,

Second, Obamacare also provides for “death care” for innocent unborn babies. Taxpayers are being forced to fund the abortion genocide (cruelly slaughtering 45 million babies since abortion was legalized in 1973), making us unwilling accomplices in murder. Democrat Congressman Stupak realizes this, and opposed the bill until being strong-armed into submission by Obama hoodlums. Many conscientious members of the medical profession will leave if forced to violate the Hippocratic Oath (as advocated by Obama’s advisers Reich and Emanuel) and to perform abortions.


(10) Government Health Care is inherently monopolistic.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama admitted that his goal was a “single payer” plan, i.e., a monopoly.

There is no such thing as “competition” with the government, or as a “public option.” Such terminology is false advertising.

(a) In order for there to be “competition” with the government, the “competitors” would have to all have the governmental powers of taxation and regulation. The companies would then be competing governments in a state of civil war, each seeking to exercise the governmental powers of regulation and taxation against their “competitors.” Unlike private enterprise, government does not need to find more efficient (cost-effective) modes of production to offer “lower prices.”

The government’s true prices are in the form of taxes forced on the taxpayer. The taxpaying consumer has no choice, but to pay any tax-“price” the government requires. In government-controlled systems, taxation discourages entrepreneurial innovation. There will be no incentive to offer the consumer improved products or a greater range of choices. Rather, with bureaucratic red tape, supply will dry up and fall behind demand . This will lead inevitably to rationing and “death panels” for senior citizens and those with pre-existing conditions.

(b) The so-called “public option” is also a fraudulent term. The term “public” may sound nice, but it masks the governmental fist of coercion.

Under Obamacare, rather than the true public (i.e., the consumers), unelected governmental bureaus will choose the “competitors.” These “competitors” willl be deemed the only “qualified plans.” Those governmentally favored plans will be subject to intense regulation as to products, prices and wages, reducing them to public utilities or semi-monopolistic arms of the government (i.e., fascism). The government will then offer itself as the only other “option,” creating a “choice” between regulatory fascism and national socialism.

The consumer will no longer control the direction of commerce. Instead, your role will be degraded from that of independent citizen to dependent serf. Your oligarchic lords will be the bureaucratic elite. They will determine your range of economic choices as well as your political ones. Once the government controls your health, it will control you. You will have no other “option” but to submit or die.


(11) As a citizen of this once free country I protest. Government has no business inserting itself into my (or anyone else’s) private health care decisions. That is no-one’s business but that of the individual.