Health Care Part 1

A Crime Against Democracy

Radical Tea Partier, Michelle Bauchman, nails it.

You heard the president this week offer an accommodation to the states to opt out of the individual mandate where necessary to tailor to their own states.  Why isn't that the sort of give the Republicans wanted?"

BACHMANN:  David, that's not a give at all.  In effect all that is is a pretext for implementing a single-payer plan.  If you recall the president's entire statement, he said, "The states can opt out as long as they stay within the requirements of all of Obamacare unless they want to go with single-payer plan."  Obamacare is a crime against democracy.  It has been a deception from the beginning.  Remember, the president told us it was a mandate, not a tax.  Now in the federal court he's arguing it's a tax, not a mandate.

No Bias...Right?

Once again, the Media demonstrates their own bias. On the top of the hour news on my local AM station, it was reported that Reuters News headline stated, US Judge Refuses to Halt New Health Care Law. Now the obvious impression you get from this head line and the first paragraph is that Vinson is not really stopping Obama Care in his recent decision. Yet if you read the actual article, it states,

But U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ordered the administration to seek an expedited appellate review within the next week of his Jan. 31 ruling that favored arguments by 26 states that the law's requirement that Americans buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty was unconstitutional.

So in other words, Judge Vinson was forcing the Administration to follow his declaration. But as I argued before, the story goes on to admit that President Obama is in fact a lawless President when it states,

The Obama administration has said previously it would appeal the ruling and continue implementing the law...

So there you have it. President Obama was just going to continue as if Judge Vinson didn't exist. But later in the day, the headlines changed, once again, demonstrating their bias. See Reuters here.

US Judge May Escalate Battle Over Health Care Reform

Now this is insane. Judge Vinson is not escalating anything. We have a lawless President who is ignoring a Federal Judge's ruling. But when you read the first paragraph, you would think the ruling has not occurred yet.

A Florida judge could on Monday become the second U.S. judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.

"Could on Monday"????? What in the world was the 78 page decision written a couple of weeks ago? As ABC News reported,

“It was not expected” he wrote, “that they would effectively ignore the order and declaratory judgment for two and one-half weeks, continue to implement the Act, and only then file a belated motion to “clarify.”

Not expected my rear end. Judge Vinson knew full well what Obama would do because he has already done it. Vinson however is (I believe) being very kind to President Obama. As the old saying goes, "Give a man enough rope, and he'll hang himself on it."

Vinson & Obama Care Part 1

Since everyone is talking about the Federal Judge that struck down Obama Care, I thought I'd take the time to read and share some pertinent quotes of this decision (read here). The decision is a great educational tool, and every American should take the time to read decisions that are written as well as this one. It almost seems as though some of these Conservative Judges want the average American to read their decisions and be educated as to how our system works. On the very first page, the Judge Robert Vinson states,

...but it bears repeating again: this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation, or whether it will solve or exacerbate the myriad problems in our health care system. In fact, it is not really about our health care system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government.

I could not agree more. This is a great way to start off a decision and is a teachable moment to those who oppose liberty and individual freedom in the name of emotional health care arguments. Vinson immediately quotes Madison as to the problem our system naturally runs into in the attempt to frame a Federal Government to which he again cites the Federalist papers,

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

So here is the crux of the argument. Does the Federal government have the enumerated power to take over our health care system or even to regulate it in the fashion they have chosen? Again, the issue is not about health issues or whether or not our system needs reform, but about the Federal government's role in regulating it. As he states on page 3,

As Chief Justice Marshall aptly predicted nearly 200 years ago, while everyone may agree that the federal government is one of enumerated powers, “the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, so long as our system shall exist.”

The issue at stake is the Tenth Amendment and the heart of the Constitutional authority for the Federal government. Vinson makes reference to Marshall,

The Framers believed that limiting federal power, and allowing the “residual”

power to remain in the hands of the states (and of the people), would help “ensure

protection of our fundamental liberties” and “reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse.

I realize that many disagree with Vinson and believe he is legislating from the bench. Many believe in the centralization of the Federal government's powers. But as I think will be seen, the powers that would be granted under Obama Care are extremely dangerous. I would like to use a current political battle as an example.

Right now, certain homosexual groups want to legitimize homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage in the public sphere. If Obama Care is allowed to stand, the Federal government could rightly regulate the sexual practices of the male homosexual. Now I fully realize that President Obama is the most pro-homosexual President ever, but keep in mind, he will not be President forever. What if a radical homosexual hating president becomes elected? What if he decides that homosexual activity is costing the Federal government too much money (or as in the case of marijuana no money at all!)? Under the exact same arguments put forth by Obama's lawyers, the Federal government could make homosexual practices a crime or at least be regulated in some manner. And this does not need a homosexual hating president to actually happen. It could be a mere cost issue. So the very thing homosexuals fear about the so-called radical right wing trying to pass laws that "peek into their bedrooms" will be the very thing Obama Care authorizes.

I will conclude this post with Vinson's next section. Judge Vinson deals mainly with two counts, the Medicaid Expansion (the "coercion" argument) and the Individual Mandate. Vinson dismisses the Medicaid Mandate count relatively quickly by page 13 of a 78 page decision. He explains the issue on page 7,

Preliminarily, I note that in their complaint the state plaintiffs appear to have relied solely on a “coercion and commandeering” theory. Nowhere in that pleading do they allege or intimate that the Act also violates the four “general restrictions” in Dole, nor did they make the argument in opposition to the defendants’ previous motion to dismiss.

This is basically the "coercion" argument. After only 6 pages Vinson concludes,

In short, while the plaintiffs’ coercion theory claim was plausible enough to survive dismissal, upon full consideration of the relevant law and the Constitutional  principles involved, and in light of the numerous disputed facts alluded to above, I must conclude that this claim cannot succeed and that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

So Obama wins at first glance, but then comes the longer half (definitely the bigger half of the candy bar), the Individual Mandate,which we will look at in a future post.

Caesar Is Lord

Rush played a clip of Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee,

The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process.  That is what HR-2 does and I rise in opposition to it, and I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured.  Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and their right to equal protection under the law?  This bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question, "Must I die, must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?"

Apparently, medical insurance has been Constitutional right all of this time (see here). For consistency sake, would not car insurance also be a Federal Right? After all, it was the Left that compared the two to begin this debate. Why stop there? Why not insure every home owner? In fact, don't I need a home, and therefore the government should buy me one?

Whether you are Prolife or Prochoice, if she is going to be consistent, why does she stand with the party that takes away the Fifth Amendment rights of unborn children. So apparently, the Media and the Left get to control the frame of the debate by arguing that it is unconstitutional to repeal Obama Care. So if it is repealed, does that mean she could take the Right to court because the Constitution is being violated?

It is quite ironic that the number of murdered children in this country that could have received proper medical care, the right to due process and the right to life, reached 53 million as opposed to her made up number of 40 million uninsured. But as my friend likes to say, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument."

But all of this only critiques her own inconsistencies. The fact is, the Left can't even begin to justify their assumptions and presuppositions. For instance, why is Caesar Lord? Where did the Right to Life come from? How did the State become the source for the right of insurance or life? Why do insurance companies have to insure anyone?

What is stopping Left-wing owned companies from doing the very things the Left wants the government to do? I have a friend who believes that companies should do business differently by doing things like profit sharing, etc. That's fine. So why not start a business doing just that instead of forcing by law his ideas of how things should be? Why is it just assumed the government has the right to do what the Left wants and force the rest of us by the power of taxation to pay into their giant insurance scheme? (which would be illegal in any legitimate company)

But in all of this, my same friend can't even begin to explain why government has the right to exist. It is just assumed because to attempt to justify his position would bring him to a reality that he must suppress. The answer is simple. God exists, but we don't like God. Since man is an idolater, we must replace God at all costs. In this case, it is with the State.