Comments on Obamacare
I responded to a listener today regarding his comments on the new medial system recently signed into law by President Obama.
I would appreciate your comments.
Best,
Al
I responded to a listener today regarding his comments on the new medial system recently signed into law by President Obama.
I would appreciate your comments.
Best,
Al
I heard today on the radio that private childen’s health insurance ceased to be available in the Boston area.
I personably believe that Obamacare violates the US constitution, and will not buy it; invoking the 10th article thereof, and since my state is mute on the subject, the decision of the right to decide lies solely with me, one of the people.
Hi David,
Please explain why you believe that Obamacare violates the U.S. Constitution.
If your reasoning is the same as mine, I don’t disagree.
There are many facets of our society that seem to violate the U.S. Constitution.
Al
While socialist-leaning judges have warped the constitution and in partiular the interstate commerce clause, I believe Obamacare is one step too far.
While the left may claim that medical cover affects interstate commerce and hence a justification for control thereof lies with the Federal government, it is clear from original intent considerations, such a claim is invalid.
As discussed by Madison in federalist 42, the primary purpose of the commerce clause to to prohibit levies placed on goods passing through one state to another or to general export and to prohibit states making export agreements with other countries. This clause was never intended to empower any federal government to the extent that it has claimed. It is long past time a line should be drawn in the sand. No more encroachment on the rights reserved to the people!
It may be that a majority of the people want federal health care (which I personally doubt) but if such is the case, then the correct way to produce it is either by a modification of the constitution, or at the very least by a referendum of the people. In no way could the election of 2008 be described as providing a mandate.
Then according to your logic, Plessey vs. Ferguson should have never been overturned? I guess the 9-0 decision to overturn Separate But Equal should have never happened?
As you remember, Harry Briggs Jr. had to walk to school 5 miles each way in Clarendon County while all the white children had buses. Without federal law superseding state law as outlined in the constitution, we might still have Jim Crow laws and separate schools. Do you think the Supreme Court had a right to uphold the 14th amendment since you are a strict constitutional constructionist?
As with civil rights, the states were not only doing their job with health care, they were abusing their job. Example: Louisiana Blue Cross in 1992 (not sure of exact year) directed one of its employees to scout out a site for the annual meeting in Spain: Cost $35,000. That is the beauty of the constitution. The greater conscience of the nation can override local politics and stubborn outdated policies.
Your arguments of the intent of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution are weak if not irrelevant. This is not about the ability to conduct business. It is about monopolies, greed, the need for health care and the acknowledgment that the need for health care is not a choice — it is part of the life process.
I’v elooked, but I could not find a General Welfare clause in the constitution, which you seem to imply. Perhaps you could point me to it. Thanks.
I have no problem with equal protection being upheld.
Al, when you have a parasitic private bank(Federal Reserve) with the monopoly on printing currency, loaning it out, and expecting it back plus usury that it never created nor will it ever create(it cannot be paid back), you end up with allot of poverty. This is not capitalism. I won’t tell you what it is so as not to confuse you. Get focused on changing this system. If we weren’t being parasited on we could all afford exceptional health care.