Liberty on the Line

The first of two cases against the Obamacare law has made its way to the bench. The judge is set to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare before the end of the year, which could either be welcome news or set a terrible precedent that would mean the end of liberty.

At the heart of the case is the federal mandate requiring every American to either purchase health insurance or face a penalty fine. Never in the history of our country has such a law been brought to bear against the citizenry. The feds are arguing that this authority is granted via the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is an often abused portion of the Constitution that the government has used to insert themselves into regulatory authority over any number of things since our founding. So it comes as no real surprise that the Obama administration thinks it can be bent to fit this as well.

Losing this case means that there is a dangerous legal precedent on the books - that of the government being legally allowed to impose mandates of this type on anything. It would effectively bring about fascism in the US. The very idea of being forced to buy something or be fined or imprisoned would have been more than enough to trigger a revolution 200 years ago. Who knows, it could very well be that it leads to one again today.

If this case fails, the only other court resolution possible (at least for now) is a multi-state lawsuit which is pending in Florida that 20 states are currently a party to. This lawsuit also seeks to have the entire law voided on constitutional grounds.

Supporters of the law argue that striking it down is extreme if the only objection is to one particular provision. What they apparently seem to have forgotten is that when a law is ruled unconstitutional, our system has only one solution to that. The entire law must be stricken from the records since the judiciary does not have the power to selectively bar individual provisions.

Assuming the worst and that no court case results in the right decision being made, then repealing it through an Act of Congress would be the only other solution left. That would be a massive uphill fight because the Democrats will obstruct any such effort, despite 75% of the population supporting repeal. After all, they ignored us to get it rammed through to begin with, why would they suddenly turn and support us now? All we could hope for would be to gain enough of a majority in the Senate to kill a filibuster. It's highly unlikely we'd be able to obtain the necessary 2/3 majority vote to override the veto we all know Obama is waiting to hand down.

So we're literally at a crossroads. Strike the law down, end the issue, preserve liberty. Failing to do so is not an option, because it would mean the end of America.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« 2010 Midterm Election
Censorship at NPR »

Posted on Oct 18, 2010 5:26 pm by Samson in: | 11 comment(s) [Closed]
I'm not so sure that Texas would need nearly as much prodding as most of the rest of These United States to make the leap and cede.. then again, Alabama, Georgia, and some of the other big Southern states might be almost as quick.. ;)

We'll see what the courts decide to do in this case, but with such strong congressional support for this I wouldn't be too shocked to see the courts take the government's side despite the obvious problems with doing so.

The American Health Care system has always confused the hell out of me. I mean, from what I've heard the American government managed to spend $10000+ per citizen per year but you still have to buy private health care, prior to this bill coming along. How does that work (unless I've heard wrong, but when even the right wing news station hammering Michael Moore gives a total of around $12000, I figure that something like $10000+ is safe to say)?

As for the idea of socialized health care and whether its good or not...I'll keep out of it since its not my countries health care system.

Edited by prettyfly on Oct 19, 2010 4:44 am
The numbers you're talking about are national averages, not real figures. Basically, you get a ton of senior citizens and disabled folks on medicare that the government is footing the bills for who regularly have to see all sorts of doctors about all kinds of expensive procedures and it makes the rest of us sound like we're all bed-ridden. ;)

I think those numbers are important, when you concider that the US as one of the biggest per capita spending rates on health coupled with lesser ourcomes for patients when compared to other nations who have free health systems, you gotta ask yourself, what the hell is going on here.

Acording to the WHO, the US spends around $6000 per person on health, this is the highest amount of any country, yet, it only ranks 38th in life expectancy, and is out performed by numourous countries that have health budgert a fraction of the size of the US.

This does not mean that the US has a poor health system, it has a brilliant one, and the cost per person per year is high most likley due to the capitalistic nature of the health system itself, one where higher cost services give practitioners greater rewards etc. And the lower life expectancy can be explained to life style choices and factors, not because of a poor health service.

If you look at the list of nations who have the higest life expecancies, Japan, Hong Kong, Iceland , Switzerland, diet and lifestyle play a huge part in their long livedness. Low red meat consumption, low junk food consumption, low processed food consumption, high vegetable and fruit consumption, high fish consumption, play a major roll in making these poeple live the longest. Infact, many experts atribute Japans long life spans to diet alone.

I don't know where these guys cook up numbers like this, but even when I was in for surgery back in 2001, my bills never got anywhere close to $60,000 and I think I'd be hard pressed to be able to prove I'd spent even $20,000 in my entire lifetime.

Are these numbers over the course of a lifetime and are they accounting for the fact that our population is substantially larger than most other countries? Do they factor in the oddball cases where a person gets cancer or some weird disease and sinks MILLIONS into their care?

6000 per person, is total spending on health services / total population per year. No need to worry about odd ball cases, unless you want to compare US health spending compared to some 3rd world nation who has no specialist care services that cost a lot.

However, those 6000 bucks, can be easly compared to the 4500 bucks per person spent in australia, as you are comparing likes.

When you look at it as a % of GDP, 16% of GDP is on health care in the US, compared to 9% of GDP in Aussie. Thats an assload more for no real gain to consumers, and if consumers are not bennifiting from the money they spend, they should be asking why the hell they are paying so much to begin with.

Edited by The_Fury on Oct 19, 2010 5:35 pm
Sorry, I misread your number as 60K and not 6K. Although I'd still dispute that as nobody I know spends $6,000 on personal healthcare every year. Not even the folks I live with who are virtual pill factories for one reason or another. All legal of course.

I'm not sure what you've missed here - people in the US do complain loudly that their healthcare costs too much. I think what you're missing is that we don't want the government running it. We'd just like them to regulate it a little better.

The answer was not to jam mandates down everyone's throat in a direct violation of the Constitution. Considering 75% of us opposed that, you'd think Congress would have done the right thing and abandoned the bill, but they didn't because it doesn't fit their progressive agendas.

The answer was not to jam mandates down everyone's throat in a direct violation of the Constitution.

I agree entirely, once i understood that part of the Obama health reforms was a legal mandate to have insurance with fines and or jail time for not having it, i was against that part of the bill. Forcing people to have insurance, or to buy insurance, removes real competition from the marketplace, and then you watch the prices go up and up, as price fixing and anti compeditive practices take over and doctors get people to take the most expensive tests and cures because it is in their interest to do so, insurance is going to pay for it after all, so who gives a shit.

While I think $6k/person sounds grossly inflated by the seniors and diasabled and hyperchrondriacs in this country, I'll not argue it because given those factors it may very well average out that way, even more likely if you throw in the AIDS, Cancer, and other terminal patients who spend like it's water to try everything under the sun to avoid the finality of their illness.

But, yes, ultimately the issue isn't that we're spending too much, or even why, we all already know those and complain about them as much as any reasonable person might. The issue is that Mr. Obama's going to force us all to carry insurance even if it means being on the government's own tab through medicaid, medicare, or prison services despite the populace presenting an overwhelming "mandate" to not go through with it and despite the fact that government doesn't have the constitutional authority to enact it in the first place. And, yes, you're probably correct in what the results would be: Everyone will either get pushed to take the most expensive tests, even when they're inappropriate and/or won't reveal anything, because the insurance will cover it anyway, or else our standards of care will rapidly decline because insurance won't cover those medications, tests, or treatments which are called for. Either way, the costs associated with medical care wil rise and the treatment standards will fall because treatments will be dictated by the insurance rather than good medical practices and malpractice lawsuits will become more frequent and so on. Perhaps the worst potential side effect is the likelihood of "the insurance said I had to do it this way" becoming a standard means of evading penalty in those malpractice cases.

That said, there clearly is an issue with health care cost inflation, though having compulsory insurance certainly isn't going to fix that.

Yes, there is, and, no, it won't.

<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30