Global Influence on Obamacare

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Forget repeal and replace, and just repeal Obamacare.  That has been my argument since day one.  The very idea of the federal government being involved in health care is unconstitutional, in the first place.  The Democrats argue that thousands (oh, wait, they say "millions") will lose their health care coverage if Obamacare is repealed.  The answer to that is, "No, they will only lose federally regulated health coverage."

In my case, I lost health insurance because of Obamacare.  I am no longer employed due to circumstances that have caused me to lose all faith in the Worker's Compensation system.  My wife's employer, to protect themselves from Obamacare, don't allow workers to reach 40 hours per week.  Together, between her job, and the money I make with my constitution efforts, we make too much money to qualify for subsidies offered by Obamacare, but not enough to afford the higher priced plans that skyrocketed as a result of Obamacare.  The only reason we don't pay the penalty is because I am a partially disabled military veteran, and I have VA benefits.  But, my benefits only cover my injuries, so anything that does not affect my left knee, left ear or neurological injuries associated with my left temporal fracture are not covered.  My wife and I are allowed to use VA facilities, but any care not directly associated with my injuries must be paid for by our insurance (of which we don't have), or cash.

In other words, because of Obamacare, my wife and I are screwed if we get sick, and wiped out financially if we have a medical emergency.

In an effort to give government insurance to people who already had care through State programs prior to the passage of Obamacare, the Democrats have increased insurance costs on people who can afford the higher costs, and have taken away all health care from people stuck between the poverty level and middle class.

The liberal left believes that only the federal government can accomplish anything.  They also disregard the fact that before Obamacare, anyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, could receive care, and for those who couldn't afford it, usually there was a program that would provide care (more often than not a State funded program).  In other words, before Obamacare, the States had their own safety net programs when it came to health care.  If States wish to provide coverage for those who have trouble paying for their medical expenses, it is completely constitutional.  The federal government, however, does not have any expressly enumerated authority to stick its nose into the health care industry in any way, shape, or form.

But. . . but . . .

The Democrats and leftists of the world always have another attack remaining in the chamber of their ideological firearm.

According to a Fox News article from last week, the United Nations warned the Trump administration that repealing ObamaCare without providing an adequate replacement would be a violation of multiple international laws.

The Washington Post reported the Office of the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights in Geneva sent an "urgent appeal" on February 2.

The Post reported that the confidential, five-page memo cautioned that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would put the U.S. “at odds with its international obligations.” 

The warning was sent to the State Department and reportedly said the U.N. expressed “serious concern” about the prospective loss of health coverage for 30 million people, that in turn could violate “the right to social security of the people in the United States.”

First of all, it is not government's job to "guarantee" our rights.  Second, healthcare is not a right.  Third, the greatest threat to our rights is government.

I am sure the Democrats are taking the warning from the U.N. seriously.  I hope the Trump administration, and GOP, is not.

My first reaction is, "Screw the U.N., we should leave the organization, anyway.  Let's see how long the internationalist tool for communism and Islam lasts without our money being pumped into it."

The Founding Fathers intended the United States to be exceptional (an exception to the norm).  The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were determined to refuse to follow the political systems plaguing Europe, and most of history, and instead came to the conclusion that we should have a republic, with a mixed constitution unlike anything out there.  During the writing of that Constitution, the delegates representing the States created a federal government limited to only authorities that protect, preserve and promote the union.  According to James Madison in Federalist #45, the federal government's powers are "few and defined," while the States' are "numerous and indefinite," and are retained for the purpose of extending to "all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Additionally, the men of that time period, such as George Washington, warned against foreign entanglements.  He suggested in his 1796 Farewell Address that foreign entanglements are sometimes an "unnatural connection," and that we should not allow the opening of the "door to foreign influence and corruption."

He said, "...the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government... to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

The majority of the rest of the world has strong central governments, national systems where the power emanates from the top down.  In America, the States and the People are the source of power, and the central government was created to serve the States and the people, not rule over them.  The federal government's service is primarily centered around external issues, while the responsibilities of the people and the State governments are regarding the internal issues.

So, first, who cares what the United Nations thinks?  They don't understand Americanism, or State Sovereignty.

Second, the federal government is not authorized to be involved in health care, health insurance, or health procedures (including abortion).  The States never gave the federal government those powers.

Third, when we hear sob stories like the one late night host Jimmy Kimmel delivered, designed to tug heartstrings, and call for universal socialized healthcare, we are expected to believe that if there is no federal healthcare system, everyone is doomed to a healthcare system reminiscent of the Middle Ages during the era of the Bubonic Plague.  Fact is, the problems in health care exists because of government's interference in the first place.

Singapore largely stuck to the original American system of health care, keeping government largely out of it, and encouraging privatization and competition between the various parts of the medical industry.  While there is a minor safety net in Singapore for some cases, here in the U.S. that is something the States can legally do.  The result is that Singapore has the most effective and successful healthcare system in the world.

The problem is, we have been in health care hell because we abandoned the free market system in its truest sense.  The American System is at risk because we've been chasing Europe's leftist style of health care in the first place.  I say we ignore the United Nations, and return to what worked before the federal government began tampering with it in the first place (which is not insurance companies, but a direct patient/provider relationship where the doctors work to win your business, and there are no third party providers except in the most catastrophic cases).

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary