Thursday, September 21, 2017

Democrats Prepare to Push for Socialist Single-Payer Universal Health Care

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

The main thrust behind the Democrat Party's push for single-payer health care is their warped definition on what a right is.  They've decided they are the determiners of what constitutes a right, and that it is government that not only grants rights, but guarantees them, and must subsidize them if someone cannot access the government provided right.

The premise is in error.

Based on their erroneous vision of what is a right, the Democrats have decided you have a right to health care, and it must be forced upon everyone by government mandate.  Therefore, with Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist, at the helm, the Democrats are ready to fight against pharmaceutical and health insurance companies as they do what they can to establish single-payer healthcare in America.

Sanders complains that "insurance companies and drug companies to make billions of dollars in profits and make industry CEOs extremely wealthy."

Remember, profit and wealth are dirty words to the Democrats who strive for everyone to be equally miserable. . . unless, of course, you are a member of the political ruling elite.

"To my Republican colleagues: Please don't lecture us on healthcare," Sanders said on the floor with his Democrat buddies in stitches, "In the last few months you, the Republican Party, have showed the American people what you stand for when you voted for legislation that would have thrown up to 32 million people off their health insurance they have and give huge tax breaks."

"You have no credibility on the issue of healthcare," he added.

In response, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tweeted that, "The Left is demanding an actual government takeover of healthcare," and shared a link to a list of stories that stated the single-payer proposal was a "litmus test" for Democrats.

Under the Sanders healthcare plan, Medicare would pay for emergency surgery, prescription drugs, mental healthcare, and eye care without a copay. Medicare, which does not currently cover dental care or vision and hearing aids, would cover those items under his proposal. Soon after passed into law, people 18 and under would receive a "universal Medicare card" and others currently not eligible for Medicare would be gradually phased in after four years.

People who now receive private medical coverage under a job would lose that plan to receive Medicare instead, and their employers would pay higher taxes rather than pay for the cost of private plans.

The United States Constitution was written with the intention of limiting the powers of the federal government. As a positive document, the Constitution lists only what the federal government can do. Article I, Section 8 contains eighteen clauses that enumerate the powers of the federal government's legislative branch. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments indicate that the powers granted to the federal government are specifically enumerated within the text of the Constitution, or Amendments passed, and if an issue does not fall within the purview of the authorities granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, the issue belongs to each of the individual states, respectively.

Congress, in an attempt to justify the federal government's unconstitutional proposals, regularly grants themselves the power to tax and spend, and essentially do as they please, with expanded versions of the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause (established, they believe, by Supreme Court decisions of the past).

The Supreme Court, when it comes to the law, is not another arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. Their decisions do not amend the Constitution, nor create law. The United States Supreme Court is not granted the power to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution, either. Their function is to "apply" the Constitution to the cases they rule on, and provide "opinion" regarding the constitutionality of a law. If a law is seen as unconstitutional, it is up to the legislature to change it. Only the Legislative Branch of government can "make" law, or repeal law.

The federal government may only exercise the powers granted to it, or denied to the states, as granted by the Constitution, or any Amendments. The states have control over everything else. Therefore, the Supreme Court is not suppose to rule over cases that are strictly state issues, nor can the Supreme Court make rulings that "dictate" to the states how to establish their own laws, if the issue does not fall under the authority of the federal government as granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The Legislative Branch, with proposals like Health Care, has taken the federal government into uncharted political and legal territories, regardless of Constitutional authority, and regardless of the opinion of the American People.

The Constitutional problems with Health Care legislation, and the federal attempt to take control of the American health care system, are many. The proposal of allowing the federal government any intrusion into the private issue of health care, or health insurance, is unconstitutional to its very core. The General Welfare Clause was not intended to give the Congress a free-floating power to do anything it can no more than the Commerce Clause was designed to allow the federal government to restrict interstate commerce at will.

In Federalist #41, James Madison (considered the father of the Constitution), wrote that ". . . persons alleging that the General Welfare Clause permitted unlimited exertion of power were grasping at straws in their attempt to prevent the ratification of the Constitution. . ." And he wrote, in regards to people who believe the General Welfare Clause allows government to do more than provided by Article I, Section 8, that the ". . .specification of the objects by the general terms immediately follow and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semi-colon."

The General Welfare Clause states that the United States is to "promote the general Welfare." Notice the word "promote," rather than "provide," first of all. Also, note the word "general" rather than "individual," meaning that the General Welfare Clause was designed to promote the general welfare of the republic, not to each individual in the form of an entitlement.  The term "Welfare" means "a condition of all's well," and was intended to be a description of the orderly society if the federal government was to do its job, not a reason for the federal government to take on an issue.

Contrary to the arguments presented by the supporters of federal health care legislation, government involvement in health care, as witnessed in examples of government intrusion into health care around the world, will lead to the rationing of health care (particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved), provide free health care for illegal immigrants paid for by your tax dollars, offer free abortion services paid for by the tax dollars of everyone (including those with a moral abhorrence to abortion), and probably forced participation in those abortions by medical professionals that have moral and/or religious objections to the procedure.

With the incentive of profit removed, the quality of care will lessen, and the greater minds that would normally enter the medical industry, as lured by profit incentive, will opt for other opportunities, leaving the industry with less qualified personnel for an ever increasing demand created by the offer of "free" health care by the government.

In the process of establishing a government-run health care system, like Sanders is recommending, the government would be given free reign over your personal health care information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. Anytime the government would wish, they could search through your records, and violate your right to "secure. . . papers and effects" without a warrant, or probable cause. This is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution requires the members of Congress to be "bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. The proposal of an unconstitutional bill filled with unconstitutional provisions is a violation of that sacred oath or affirmation.

One must also consider that liberty, or freedom, is a manifestation of "choice" available to individual citizens. The government takeover of health care would eventually eliminate the private industry, that would leave Americans with no other choice than government health care. Such a limit of choice is a limit on liberty. And when considering such a limit on choice, one must ask themselves, what happens if the government does a poor job of running health care as many Americans expect? In that case, we will be stuck with what we have, because the choice to not use the government system, or to not pay into it anymore, will have been removed.

One more thought on the government intrusion into the health care industry. What happens if future administrations are not so benevolent?  What happens if a future administration is tyrannical?

What's your choice, then?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: