Obamacare is scarier than the Patriot Act
Liberals and libertarians and even crazy conservatives (the don't touch me kind) all rallied against the Patriot Act. Because it was a piece of legislation that gave the Federal Govt. unprecedented powers to peer into your life, and maintain a police state.
And yet - do you know what ObamaCare is based on? It is based on the premise that the Federal government has the right to regulate actions you don't take. Because actions you don't take can fall under the commerce clause.
Most people seem ok with the idea that this allows the government to regulate your decision to not buy health insurance. As this is what the bill does. It makes sure everyone is covered by regulating that they have to buy health insurance. What if I told you that if you applied the same principle to other areas, the government could regulate your decision to not buy a car? Not buy a house? Not buy a car from GM? Not buy a house with a loan from Fannie Mae? Or you are simply not purchasing enough, and in order to save the economy, all citizens must spend 15% of their annual income on non-staple goods. Make that American made non-staple goods. Scaring you yet?
Sure, you say that is ridiculous. When Medicare was passed, mandating that every American must buy health insurance would have been laughed out of town. The founding fathers would have had heart attacks at the notion of federal personal income tax, let alone automatic deductions. And don't mistake all this for progress. Some of it is, some of it is just bloat, the natural process of a government to seek additional power over its people, unless held in check (hence that little constitution thing the Obamessiah has seemingly forgotten).
It is the notion that the Federal government can regulate the "decision" to NOT DO SOMETHING as an economic action. This gives the government more or less unlimited power.
Thankfully, this country has the Supreme Court. And people started to realize that the bill would be struck down if it was passed under the commerce clause, so at the last minute the Democrats changed tactics and instead called the House bill a tax, which it isn't. But the Senate bill was passed under the auspices of the commerce clause.
It is likely that the Supreme Court will not accept this new covering of the ass, and will strike down a fair portion or all of the bill (depending on how much the current Administration tries to shake down the court - separation of powers is for non-deities after all).
Its always a good plan to keep a few Philosopher Kings in your back pocket, never know when a demagogue is going to run rampant. But really, if they do not strike this down quite aggressively, this country is going to be in deep shit. Most Americans do not realize the extent to which the constitution keeps them safe from the abuses of government. If this bill is allowed to stand, the constitution truly will have become a historical artifact rather than basis of government.
I would suggest reading this article, which prompted this post and goes into a lot more detail about how and why the bill is constitutional neither as a tax nor under the commerce clause:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704446704575206502199257916.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
And yet - do you know what ObamaCare is based on? It is based on the premise that the Federal government has the right to regulate actions you don't take. Because actions you don't take can fall under the commerce clause.
Most people seem ok with the idea that this allows the government to regulate your decision to not buy health insurance. As this is what the bill does. It makes sure everyone is covered by regulating that they have to buy health insurance. What if I told you that if you applied the same principle to other areas, the government could regulate your decision to not buy a car? Not buy a house? Not buy a car from GM? Not buy a house with a loan from Fannie Mae? Or you are simply not purchasing enough, and in order to save the economy, all citizens must spend 15% of their annual income on non-staple goods. Make that American made non-staple goods. Scaring you yet?
Sure, you say that is ridiculous. When Medicare was passed, mandating that every American must buy health insurance would have been laughed out of town. The founding fathers would have had heart attacks at the notion of federal personal income tax, let alone automatic deductions. And don't mistake all this for progress. Some of it is, some of it is just bloat, the natural process of a government to seek additional power over its people, unless held in check (hence that little constitution thing the Obamessiah has seemingly forgotten).
It is the notion that the Federal government can regulate the "decision" to NOT DO SOMETHING as an economic action. This gives the government more or less unlimited power.
Thankfully, this country has the Supreme Court. And people started to realize that the bill would be struck down if it was passed under the commerce clause, so at the last minute the Democrats changed tactics and instead called the House bill a tax, which it isn't. But the Senate bill was passed under the auspices of the commerce clause.
It is likely that the Supreme Court will not accept this new covering of the ass, and will strike down a fair portion or all of the bill (depending on how much the current Administration tries to shake down the court - separation of powers is for non-deities after all).
Its always a good plan to keep a few Philosopher Kings in your back pocket, never know when a demagogue is going to run rampant. But really, if they do not strike this down quite aggressively, this country is going to be in deep shit. Most Americans do not realize the extent to which the constitution keeps them safe from the abuses of government. If this bill is allowed to stand, the constitution truly will have become a historical artifact rather than basis of government.
I would suggest reading this article, which prompted this post and goes into a lot more detail about how and why the bill is constitutional neither as a tax nor under the commerce clause:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704446704575206502199257916.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Comments
Post a Comment