Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    6,731
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 593 Times in 281 Posts
    Rep Power
    1172851

    Default Obamacare vs. the Constitution

    An excellent summation of the more prominent issues. The author does a good job pointing out what our founding fathers never foresaw... and which they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors to prevent.

    --------------------------------------------------

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...cIR_story.html

    Overreach: Obamacare vs. the Constitution

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Published: February 16

    Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.

    The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.

    Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups — Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold — to hail the alleged compromise and hand Obama a major political victory.

    Before, Obama’s coalition had been split. His birth control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia governor Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama’s choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would rather go to jail than abide by the regulation. After the “accommodation,” it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.

    A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let’s accept his contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

    On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?

    This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

    Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

    First, the assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

    Second, the assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which must be without charge. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

    Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim.

    Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already hypertrophied Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

    This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

    In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

    Every presidential challenger says that he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Elmhurst, NY
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    89509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
    An excellent summation of the more prominent issues. The author does a good job pointing out what our founding fathers never foresaw... and which they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors to prevent.

    --------------------------------------------------

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...cIR_story.html

    Overreach: Obamacare vs. the Constitution

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Published: February 16

    Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.

    The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.

    Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups — Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold — to hail the alleged compromise and hand Obama a major political victory.

    Before, Obama’s coalition had been split. His birth control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia governor Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama’s choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would rather go to jail than abide by the regulation. After the “accommodation,” it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.

    A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let’s accept his contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

    On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?

    This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

    Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

    First, the assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

    Second, the assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which must be without charge. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

    Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim.

    Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already hypertrophied Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

    This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

    In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

    Every presidential challenger says that he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?
    Every presidential challenger says that he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?
    Poorly. There are too many diversions, by design, more meant to split the RNC. Some just don't know when to stop. Some don't even realize they are being played, while we argue amongst ourselves over tangents. Some don't even know who's court the ball is in, or who has possession of it. Stupid letting the DNC set the tone and run our arguments and debates. Obama has done so much serious harm to the Republic, yet it goes unchallenged.

    There is only one kind of Capitalism he supports. In China, they call it State Capitalism. Any One want to buy a vowel?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    6,731
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 593 Times in 281 Posts
    Rep Power
    1172851

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Intense View Post
    Poorly. There are too many diversions, by design, more meant to split the RNC. Some just don't know when to stop. Some don't even realize they are being played, while we argue amongst ourselves over tangents. Some don't even know who's court the ball is in, or who has possession of it. Stupid letting the DNC set the tone and run our arguments and debates. Obama has done so much serious harm to the Republic, yet it goes unchallenged.
    That's why essays like this one are valuable. It helps re-focus attention on the important issues.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Elmhurst, NY
    Posts
    179
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    89509

    Default

    Consider too, that these Institutions that do Public Service for Pennies on the Dollar, are under attack by the Fed, almost as if the Government views these Institutions as a alien threat or a challenge to it's authority. Even toying with Charities and their bread and butter, their contributions and tax exempt status.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    6,731
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 593 Times in 281 Posts
    Rep Power
    1172851

    Default

    I believe that the author's final point is that emphasizing the reasons why Obamacare is unconstitutional, would help the candidate who is doing the emphasizing, win both the nomination and the Presidency.
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 57 Times in 27 Posts
    Rep Power
    835852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
    I believe that the author's final point is that emphasizing the reasons why Obamacare is unconstitutional, would help the candidate who is doing the emphasizing, win both the nomination and the Presidency.
    A strategy that will work only if the SCOTUS doesn't uphold it this summer.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    6,731
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 593 Times in 281 Posts
    Rep Power
    1172851

    Default

    The people who founded the country did it with the idea that government would be a relatively small and unimportant part of everyone's lives, except for the few that were actually policitians. The whole idea was that people would be free to run their own lives and sink or swim by their own decisions, helping their neighbors when needed, learning from their own mistakes, trying again etc.

    The government was there only to do things private citizens or groups could NOT do - dealing with foreign countries, national defense, dispassionate criminal pursuit and prosecution, setting national standards etc. And even most of those things were to be done at the most local levels, with the Federal govt's purpose only to handle the matters that even local or state govts couldn't.

    The Constitution was written accordingly, giving the Fed only the powers that"the States or the People" couldn't handle at all. And that wasn't very many. It was forbidden all else, though the states and people had all other authority to do the rest.

    So many parts of Obamacare (and much of the rest that the Fed has intruded on today) flies in the face of those ideas.

    This is a good thing to keep in mind - each time you examine some new (or not so new) thing the Fed govt is to do, this will give you some pointers about whether it is unconstitutional.

    And remember that the issue is not whether you think the govt can do it BETTER than the People. It's whether the people can do it AT ALL. If they can, however imperfectly, then the Fed govt is forbidden to "help".
    "The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •