The health care bill that just passed in a process that only a parliamentarian could love is disturbing to many as much, or more for the process than the particulars of the bill. Many, myself included, are appalled that the will of the people wasn’t much of a concern and the phrase “ram it down our throats” was used daily. There is now an effort to go to court(s) to challenge the law’s constitutionality. While the mandate to make people purchase insurance, whether or not they want or can afford it, is suspect, most of the law, while odious, is probably not unconstitutional according to the view of the lawyers that actually interpret it.
I believe that we are now at an inflection point in our Nation’s life and this bill has brought some flaws in our Constitution to focus. Our country’s fundamental document was carefully and brilliantly crafted and is a remarkable piece of work. But as time went on, changes were made in response to the Nation’s problems and changing concerns. Slavery was abolished, taxation was changed, alcohol was banned then brought back and so on. Now we have arrived at a point where it has been altered in ways that is not in touch with either the founding fathers or the will of citizens today.
As I see it there are three fundamental problems with the law of the land today, mainly due to the packing of the Supreme Court by FDR and changes they allowed. First is the establishment of the Federal bureaucracy that actually writes the law or “implementing language” as it is sometimes referred to. Secondly, is the tortured use of the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Thirdly, the balance of powers between the branches is out of whack.
The original Constitution specified that Congress could not delegate its law making powers. This put a real limit on how many laws and how complicated a law the Feds could come up with. If every Congressman had to read and understand the laws they were voting on there would be a lot less Federal intrusion into daily life and they couldn’t pass the buck when bad law was made. Until the law was changed so that Congressional staffers and regulatory bodies actually wrote the law you couldn’t have someone like John Conyers saying “what good is reading the bill?”, or the memorable line by Nancy Pelosi saying they would have to pass the bill to see what’s in it. Nowadays the parties leadership sign off on a bill and most Congressmen just follow their leadership without a full knowledge of what is in it.
The Commerce Clause, in my opinion, has been twisted way beyond what I think was the original intent. Obviously, the Federal government needs to regulate commerce between the States. But if you are in one State, and the dentist is in the same State filling a cavity, it is ridiculous to suggest this should be governed by the Feds because the light being used to peer into your mouth was not made here as well. While some good things have come about due to the use of the Commerce Clause, such as Civil rights, it has been tortured beyond it’s bounds and is a wedge to push Federal power into just about anything they want.
Finally, the Founding Fathers intended for the people to have the final say. The Supreme Court has a powerful role to play in interpreting the law but the people have the right to amend it. The President is a powerful figure, but he too serves the people and is sworn to defend the Constitution, Congress is making itself irrelevant by ceding power to regulatory bodies and staffers. Unless these things are brought back into balance, it is the people’s right and duty to take back the power and restructure it.
This health care law has exposed the flaws not only of the people who have jammed, bribed, and threatened it through, but the system itself. Every now and then every person, company, and indeed, country has to examine itself, look at where you started and where you’ve arrived and decide how to move forward from here. We have long established problems to fix and the road will not be short or easy. But it is too dangerous to be governed by the whims of men rather than a Constitution that stipulates the rules ALL must live under.
|
| Join To Get Blog Update Notices |
| Visit the Hickory Hound Group |
Monday, March 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I would disagree that health care reform was not wanted by a majority of the people. There seems to be a lot of dispute out there about that, and, before you go quoting the various polls, let’s avoid that sidebar by agreeing that for every poll for the reform there is an equally credible one against.
The opposition to health care reform has been very vocal. They’ve been assisted by a Republican minority that, rather than looking for some type of solution sought only to fail the program and oppose anything that President Obama put forth. This wasn’t a secret; many of them said it repeatedly in the media and made it clear that they would have opposed any bill put forward as they will continue to do on most every other program that Congress addresses, at least until November, 2010.
This type of obstructionist tactic results in a bill which was , “. . . jammed, bribed and threatened through.” (Your words, not mine, and I would disagree with that assessment, but that’s another topic all together). Bi-partisanship wasn’t going to work, as was made evidently clear by the comments of Republican lawmakers throughout the process as well as the fact that not a single Republican congressman supported the bill. It would seem that there was just as much strong-arming going on with the Republicans as with the Democrats.
It is also interesting that tactics and procedures used with regard to the Health Care Reform were implemented without mercy during the recent Republican administration, when opposition was quelled and those who dared question the administration were faced with accusations of treason or being un-American.
Strange that some of those complaining the loudest now didn’t see anything wrong with that.
It seems to be a question of who’s ox is being gored rather than a true dispute over appropriate parliamentary procedure, and the Republicans do themselves no favors in putting forth their position when it’s too easy to pull their own language and actions from reports during recent years where they were saying exactly opposite of what they’re saying now.
There are undoubtedly flaws in this law, as there are in any complicated law. Over time, they’ll be discovered and resolved. In the meantime, though, the Republicans opposed to the change need to quit whining; they have no one but themselves to blame. Had they chosen a more middle-of-the road position over the uber-conservatism, they might have had a bit more negotiating leverage on Capitol Hill. As it is, though, they risk relegating themselves to being insignificant.
Will I be proven wrong in November? Possibly, because one of the great failings of our society is the apathy expressed by large numbers of voters. The radical elements at both ends of society are much better at getting out the vote of like minded individuals than those in the middle are of educating themselves and making a truly informed decision about their position and then communicating that to the government through the ballot. Because of that it’s possible that some Democrats, or even moderate Republicans, will be removed from office and replaced by the ultraconservative crowd that lives on Fox News. It’s also just as likely, though, that the Tea Party crowd will field their own candidates, divide the conservatives and a Democratic majority will remain.
I guess we'll know on the morning of November 3.
I don't disagree that the majority of the people want healthcare reform and that is not what Harry is arguing here. What is verrrry clear is that people don't want this form of Louis XIV - Marie Antoinette - Police State reform.
This is clearly about control. Now they are backtracking and saying it will provide "Near-Universal Coverage" - What? It is being shown that costs on young adults (http://www.ajc.com/health/health-premiums-could-rise-415914.html), and this bill will not have the coverage for pre-existing coverage that others coveted so much.
It is about control and getting more money under the control of the government, so that they can do the same thing with it that they have done with social security. Spend it!!!
If you want to fix healthcare 1)Why not tort reform? 2)Why not encourage more preventative care? 3) Why not medical health savings accounts? 4) Why not holistic medicine? 5) Why not allow interstate purchases of insurance? 6)Why not allow poor people to go get medical services from County Health agencies? 7) What is wrong with Cadillac Insurance plans?
Why are the government officials opting out of this plan?
I agree that the Republicans better be wary and better present something for people to support. They do have plans, but they have not coalesced into a single document and they need to do that and state, "Here is our plan." Just like the contract with America.
I don't think at this late stage that there will be a third party. I don't think there is even enough time to see that by 2012, but 2014 and 2016 could be a different story.
It will be hard to support anyone who supported this bill, there are no excuses. America did not want this and that is clear. They should have gone back to the drawing board, but their egos wouldn't allow them to do that. They stiff armed and cajoled people into voting for something they didn't believe in and now
they have tainted themselves. Adios.
While I did cite the health care bill as a poor law passed by a poor process, it is the process that is my major concern. Yes, Democrats and Republicans, especially since Teddy Roosevelt, have both moved us away from the original intent of the founders and the principle of equal treatment under law. And it's not surprising that Democrats work the system to their advantage when possible and Republicans do the same. At the end of the day, we wind up with uncertainty, less real justice, and ultimately laws will come down to only work for those who have the power and the money to get their way. I don't want to live in a country like that.
The original Constitution wasn't perfect and there is nothing wrong with tweeking it here and there. But the Republic we have now it not grounded in Constitutional principles and has become almost a mob rule. And people should be intolerant of the abuses of process we have whether they be Democrat or Republican. In fact, partisanship allows those who wield power to divide a largely ignorant public while they enjoy a cycle of office holder, then either a job consulting or lobbying the body they just left.
We need a nation of laws, not of men and a system of checks and balances so that power does not become concentrated, and the interests of free individuals count for nothing.
Post a Comment