Well, they did it, but I guess its no surprise. The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of the Healthcare Reform Bill. Even though some in the Senate (even some Democrats) are saying that the House version of the Bill is dead in the water, I'm not feeling very good about it being one step closer to becoming law.
So I've got a question for anyone, ANYONE, who can give me an answer:
Where do Congress and the President think they derive the authority and/or power to pass laws related to health care?
I've asked this question so many times that I've lost count, and am still waiting for a valid answer. Do they think it comes from the Preamble to the Constitution...the phrase "promote the general welfare....?" That would be ridiculous; but then, that's never stopped Congress before, has it?
So let's take a quick stroll down this road called "Average Guy Musings", allow for some rants, take a look at some of this Bill that was passed, and point out why Congress has no authority to mandate health care "reform."
First of all, the Bill that passed the House is outrageous. The GAO has said it will cost in excess of $1.2 billion over 10 years, which is several hundreds of billions more than they had said they were going to agree on. Now its not that I'm a fan of, or particularly trust, the GAO, but their numbers are what both sides of the aisle look to. And how are they going to pay for this? They're going to cut $500 million in Medicare payments to doctors, at the exact same time when doctors are saying they need increases to those same payments. They're either going to drive a lot of doctors out of medical practice, or force doctors to stop taking Medicare patients. I believe that's known as the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This Bill also forces the American people to buy health insurance, regardless of whether they want it or feel they need it or can afford it. "Oh," you say, " but they government will provide subsidies for those who can't afford it." What if those same people don't want to be forced to eat at the trough of government handouts and waste? Well then, they'll be fined, up to 2.5% of their income. Excuse me, where exactly in the Constitution do you, Ms. Pelosi, derive the authority to do any of that? Do tell!
And where and when has the government ever done anything well, or efficiently? You cannot point to Medicare as an example because its extremely inefficient. The whole point is that government simply cannot do anything as efficiently as private industry; there's no incentive whatsoever for more and greater efficiencies in government. As a matter of fact, the only incentives in government are what lead to gross INefficiencies.
I'm not saying something shouldn't be done to improve our health care system. Of course it could be better. But at most its a states-rights issue, not a federal issue. There are no provisions in the U.S. Constitution for a federally-mandated health care system. Full stop!
But hey, I'm open to correction. Please, anybody, show me where I'm wrong on this...if you can...
An Average Guy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think people have it confused where it says in the Constitution to "promote the general welfare", they must think it means to "provide for general welfare"... What do you expect when the government educates the children?
ReplyDeleteCat - that's about the only place where I can imagine Congress could possibly glean their inaccurate understanding of their authority. I'm not involved in any sort of Constitutional law, but even I understand that the "promote the general welfare" clause in the Preamble does NOT in fact grant authority for massive welfare entitlements; that clause, along with the others in the Preamble, is only setting the stage for laying out the organization and power of the federal government. For Congress to suggest that they are granted any powers at all based on only the Preamble would be laughable if it weren't so frightening.
ReplyDelete