Health Care: Repeal or Amend?

By Jerry McDaniel

The current national discussion of Obamacare gives us an easy to understand object lesson as to just how the progressives (American Socialists) have taken over our government in a hundred year bloodless revolution. According to an AP/GfK poll released Friday, only 37 percent of Americans want the “Affordable Care Act” that Obama signed into law last March repealed outright. This is an astonishing number because it means that 67 percent of Americans have bought into the premise that the federal government has the authority and should regulate, to some extent, America’s health care.

Vladimir Lenin considered universal health care to be the lynchpin of communism, not because he was concerned about the health of the people — he was responsible for the death of millions — but, because it provided the surest means of guaranteeing citizens’ dependence on the state. Food and medicine are two main essentials of life. When the government is able to control access to these essentials, citizens become dependent on, and thus slaves to the state.

Obamacare, when fully implemented, will make all citizens dependent on the state for their health care; meanwhile, eligibility for food stamps has been quitely expanded to the point where 42 million Americans are now receiving food assistance through the federal government. (States are only responsible for half the cost of administering food stamp programs. The food stamps themselves are funded entirely by the federal government).

Millions more Americans are partially or wholly dependent on the government for their livelihood, through direct grants, tax incentives or employment by companies that depend on government contracts for major parts of their revenue. Government largess is like a potent drug in the economic system of any nation, destroying individual initiative and liberty.

Once the population becomes addicted, it is difficult, if not impossible, to cleanse it from the system. We only have to look to the news from Europe today to see the turmoil caused by withdrawal from an addiction to socialism. To understand the dynamics of socialist addiction, consider the difficulty of reforming the popular social programs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicare and Welfare in our own country. Imagine what is likely to happen when it eventually becomes necessary to dismantle them completely.

It is the addictive characteristic of socialism that accounts for its steady progress in America since the late eighteen hundreds. Government controlled health care is the last step in the long journey to socialism started during the final years of the nineteenth century, and becoming firmly entrenched during the twentieth century. It has been the dream of American progressives since the inception of the progressive movement.

The idea of universal health care began in Germany in 1883 with a compulsory “sickness insurance” for workers. It soon spread to Austria, Hungary, Norway, England, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands. By 1912 virtually all of Europe had some form of “state mandated” health care. This drain on European economies was one of the factors that allowed America to become the economic superpower of the world during the twentieth century.

The seeds of universal health care were planted in America during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt (1801-1809), through a proposal by the American Association of Labor Legislation (AALL). In 1917 AALL, backed by the AMA proposed a plan for compulsory health insurance; the advent of World War I caused it to be put on hold, however. The effort was revived in the mid-twenties by the Committee on the Cost of Medical Care.

Franklin Roosevelt toyed with the idea of including health insurance in the Social Security Bill of 1935, but it was not included for fear it would destroy the chances of the Social Security Bill being passed. The Roosevelt administration again attempted health care legislation with the National Health Act (Wagner Bill) of 1939. It was defeated by a conservative legislature elected in 1938 and World War II prevented its further progress.

Another attempt at national compulsory health insurance was attempted in 1943 with the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bills. In 1945, Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman again proposed a plan for national health care. It died in committee. In 1958 Congressman Aime Forand (D-RI) introduced a bill to cover hospital costs for senior citizens on Social Security. His bill did not make it through Congress but the proposal became a part of the Great Society legislation signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 as Medicare, parts A and B and Medicaid. We are all familiar with the ill-fated efforts of Bill and Hillary Clinton for universal health care after they took office in 1993.

Barack Obama has accomplished in a little over a year what no other progressive President has been able to accomplish in over a century of trying. We can expect that progressives will go to any length to salvage as much of the health care bill as possible. However, it must not be allowed to stand. It must be repealed in its entirety, not modified, reformed or altered to rid it of some of its more egregious parts. Like a cancer, it must be exorcised completely, otherwise it will Metastasize and eventually kill the patient.

The greatest danger to our individual liberty and our economic survival is the danger of a compromise on Obamacare, as the AP/GfK poll shows. Already we are hearing talk of amending the bill rather than repealing it, and that comes from the Republican side of the aisle. Twenty states have filed suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory insurance section of the bill. The theory is that if the courts determine that part of the bill to be unconstitutional the whole plan will unravel. However, that theory does not stand up in the light of history. In fact, that part of the bill could be nothing more than a “Trojan Horse” meant to establish the constitutionality of government regulation of health care.

If only compulsory insurance is found to be unconstitutional, then by inference, the balance of the bill will be considered constitutional by default, thereby inhibiting any further court challenges. The government will attempt to argue in court that the “commerce clause” empowers government to regulate health care and, by extension, compulsory health insurance mandated by the government. This is an extreme corruption of the commerce clause based on a 1942 Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn that “any activity that exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce” may be regulated by Congress. Because of the precedent established by this case there can be little confidence in how the courts will rule, and for that reason the bill must be repealed completely.

It should be obvious to any thinking person, literate in the English language, that the delivery of health care does not and cannot constitute interstate commerce. Health care delivery requires the face to face interaction between the provider and the patient. A physician in Chicago cannot diagnose and treat a person in Milwaukee, for example. Insurance does not fall under interstate commerce because it is not a product but a contract. The sanctity of a contract is emphasized in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution by forbidding states from passing any law “impairing the obligation of contracts”.

Obama will certainly veto any attempts by Congress to repeal the health care bill, and repeal may not be possible before 2013 when the next Congress is seated without Obama in the White House. However, the amount of effort put forth by the Republican Congress over the next two years for repeal is the best possible indicator of who should be reelected in 2012. Any Republican Congressman or Senator who fails to support and vote for repeal in the next Congress should not be sent back to Washington in 2013.

Click here for a thorough explanation of the “commerce clause”.

Advertisements

13 responses to “Health Care: Repeal or Amend?

  1. The Republicans (American Fascists) want to put the life and death decisions into the hands of corporations and not in the hands of the American people. Their only concern is profits. If the American Fascists (Republicans) take control of Congress, that means the end of everything our founding fathers envisioned for our country. RIP America.

  2. Ben, I believe you got that backwards. If the Republicans DO NOT take control of Congress, THAT means the end of everything our founding fathers envisioned for our country. Furthermore, corporations have done more to improve my life, and yours to, for that matter, than the government has ever done. It is indeed sad that folks like you are willing to trade the liberty millions of Americans have died to secure and protect, for a little bit of false security.

  3. Tragically, Ben’s knee-jerk, emotional and uninformed reaction is typical of the la-la, pie-in-the-sky neo-Marxist left who think money grows on trees and, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, social ills can best be solved by big government and their suffocatingly self-serving bureaucratic servants. Over the years, the Progressive propagandists have done a remarkably stellar job of brainwashing generations of otherwise commonsense Americans, and in the process they’ve nearly driven the Republic over the cliff. The ideological divide in the nation today is so menacing that I believe it will inexorably lead to the nation’s dissolution. Indivisibility of the union at any cost is without any constitutional merit. Like many other Americans, whatever it takes (nullification, civil disobedience, secession) , I will NOT allow myself or my family to live in a neo-Marxist state. No way on earth!

  4. [Furthermore, corporations have done more to improve my life, and yours to, for that matter, than the government has ever done.]

    While corporations have made products that improve the quality of life, without government regulations, they would have destroyed our air, rivers, and most everything else. Remember the Cuyahoga River fire in the 60s?

    Do you ever visit the national parks and wilderness areas? How about libraries? Do you use our highways, bridges, and roads? Are you on Social Security and use Medicare? Do you like having water that’s safe to drink? How about food that’s safe to eat? How about a job (you’re probably retired), but how about a job where you’re not working in unsafe conditions? Do you hate those things as much as you claim to hate our government?

  5. [I will NOT allow myself or my family to live in a neo-Marxist state.]

    How about a corporatist-fascist state, because that’s where we’re heading.

  6. Ben, I am not against government. I am in favor of the constitutional government established by our founders. I detest what the progressives (American Socialists) have done to this government over the last hundred years. I support and defend the Constitution at all times particularly the Tenth Amendment.

  7. [I am in favor of the constitutional government established by our founders.]

    Bull crap. You don’t mind when Republicans trample on the Constitution. How about when Bush lied us into war? How about all the war profiteering? How about spying on Americans? How about the invasion of a sovereign nation that was of no threat to us? Those are all serious violations of our Constitution.

    How about Alito and Roberts lying to Congress during the confirmation hearings? Those are serious violations of our Constitution.

    What about the Republicans having people imprisoned for political purposes during the past few decades? Those are serious violations of our Constitution.

    But you choose to take a stand on something that will make health care available to many who can’t currently afford it. Those are kind of weird priorities.

    No, you only support that parts of the Constitution that suit your radical right-wing agenda. Otherwise you just use it as a doormat.

    • Ben, I’m beginning to think you do not like Republicans. That’s OK, I am not too fond of progressive Democrats myself. I do not know if you have children or not, but do you realize that they are going to have to repay all the money you folks with your “Robin Hood Complex” are stealing from them in order to indulge your greedy, envious, jealous and immoral demands?

      • Funny how you only have a problem with deficits when Democrats are in power. Don’t forget that Bush DOUBLED the national debt. Reagan TRIPPLED the national debt.

        There are two ways to reduce the deficits: raise taxes or cut spending. Republicans can’t name any programs they’re willing to cut, so what’s left?

        You can’t vote Republican and claim you want to reduce the deficits. That’s just hypocritical.

  8. Sadly, our unthinking, brainwashed friend, Ben, is full of … mindless Progressive soundbites. Like I said, the Progressive propagandists, aka Democratic Socialists, have done a stellar job. But, at least they’ve done something well.

  9. [Like I said, the Progressive propagandists, aka Democratic Socialists]

    That’s a lot better than National Socialists, a.k.a. Republicans, a.k.a. fascists.

  10. Ben,

    In your screeds, aka comments, you’ve conveniently ignored the historical fact that “facisim” is a leftist phenomenon. A little less rage and a little more due diligence on your part when hurdling epithets at the right might help you restore at least a semblance of credibility, or, at a mimimum, geniality.

    A few last comments. Like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, every tyranny throughout history has wrought some societal “good”, that is to say something constructive like temporarily higher employment and trains running on time, but the severely painful negatives of authoritarianism are clear for all but the willfully ignorant to see. I urge you to become familiar with the Constitution and to judge our progress and direction as a Republic solely in terms of the framers’ and ratifiers’ clear intent and not by deeply flawed stream of interpretive case law since the Constitution’s ratification. Tragically, in too many universities today the study and mastery of case law and not the founding documents themsleves passes for Constitutional erudition. The further we stray from our Constitutional roots, the greater the threat to our liberties and unity as a Republic. Progressive ideology has infected both major political parties, the Democratic Socialists being the greater of the two culprits, and therein lies the clear and present danger to our way of life. American ingenuity and commom sense principles can solve any of America’s social problems– unbridled central authority is the least effective and most dangerous means of remediating those shortcomings. We–you, I and every other American–can readily fix what may be wrong in our society without surrendering our freedom and trampling upon our Constitution. Don’t be a Democratic Socialist or a Republican Progessive. Be a clear-headed INDEPENDENT.

    • [In your screeds, aka comments, you’ve conveniently ignored the historical fact that “facisim” is a leftist phenomenon.]

      Not hardly. Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s. Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism