Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2009


The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade seems to apply to the current debate on health care—the right to privacy.  In that ruling, the Supreme Court established what is said to be “settled law” that a right to privacy is found in the constitution, even though not specifically stated.

Today’s health care bills include companions to H.R. 3200 in the Senate and the House.  These bills and especially H.R. 3200 have a common element.  It is the stripping of privacy from American citizens.  Just as a woman has the sacred right to manage her reproductive rights (per the Supreme Court), millions of Americans who would be fined for not having health care insurance have the right of privacy on how they manage their health care.

An excerpt from Mr. Justice Blackmun’s deliverance of the opinion of the court states:

 “…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

Essentially, I argue that any provision in the various bills circulating through Congress that could or would limit, direct, or propagate medical direction based on age and/or the condition itself is unconstitutional, under the right to privacy and other tenets of Roe v. Wade.

I argue that the degree of medical care suitable and available for the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s medical condition is up to the individual and the individual’s physician.  The available cure, prevention, or repair must be based on equal application of accepted general medical opinion on the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s condition and cannot be restricted or directed by the federal government or any state in any manner. 

I argue that any requirement requiring an individual to attend mandatory counseling sessions on life decisions is a violation of that individual’s right to privacy.

I argue that any fine for failure to keep health insurance is a violation of the right to privacy established under Roe v. Wade. I am a guy, but  I can still do with my body as I choose.

I argue that the federal government in its desire to create a nanny state is trampling on the precious tenets of this 1973 Supreme Court decision—a right to privacy for the individual. 

I argue that any attempt to house my or another person’s medical records with the government or any type of quasi-government agency, a requirement also found in these bills, is a violation of search and seizure and the aforementioned right to privacy.

Read Full Post »


Members of Congress have taken to calling those who are angry and attend health care town hall meetings “un-American” and a “right wing mob”.  Anyone who has viewed segments of these meetings should come to the opinion that while some may be on a mission from an organization, the crowd in general seems to support the more outspoken attendees. Speaker Pelosi has demonized anti-health care bill protesters at town hall meetings.  Her demonization of these very upset and frustrated people confirms that she is a hypocrite—watch in her own words.

Perhaps the anger goes deeper than the actual health care bill.  Perhaps the anger reaches all the way to defending one’s rights against a federal government intent on rolling right over the individual.  In this bill are requirements for citizens to attend counseling sessions and to create a board which will decide what procedures are good or bad for the people based on a formula.  As in other counties being held up as bastions of humane treatment by providing health care for all, this formula will look at a person’s age or health status to determine if the individual is entitled to a procedure, a type of care, or a pill.

Here is the $64 question!  Where does the federal government derive its authority to dictate how an American obtains health care or insurance and where he or she obtains health care or insurance?  What part of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, provides the federal government the right to make these decisions and interfere with the lives of its citizens’ freedom of choice about health care management?

Our Constitution is unique in that it provides the federal government with limited specific powers and it attempts to protect the citizens from their own federal government.  At some point in the last twenty years, we have forgotten this important constitutional keystone of our republic.  We must assume that the Speaker of the House and the Majority Whip of the Democratic Party in the House in their leadership positions should be acutely aware of the freedoms provided citizens in the Constitution and the limits on the federal government.  If they are not aware, then they should not be in those positions.

Since there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to minimize the health rights of the citizen, the anger being seen at town hall meetings may very well encompass more than simply a disagreement on healthcare.  These attendees are furious over the federal government’s unconstitutional attempt to regulate the health care of individuals and thus appear to be an unruly organized mob.  Their anger, most likely, also extends to the recent out of control spending by Congress and the prior and present administrations.

If you listen carefully, there is distrust of government and government representatives reflected in the comments of the attendees.  And if you listen more carefully to the comments from the Democratic hosts of these town halls, you will hear often disingenuous and trite statements and a desire not to listen to the attendees.  Often these disingenuous or trite comments inflame the already angry attendees to an even higher degree.

Since much of this healthcare bill is a gross violation of the powers provided the federal government under the constitution (if you don’t believe me, read it here or for a simpler version here), the attendees are being driven to frustrated ugly mob status because no one appears to be listening.  These deaf ears are attributed to the leadership in the House of Representatives and other federally elected officials.

Consider that this healthcare bill, specifically H.R. 3200, is enormous and hard to digest; the Democrats often themselves do not understand what is in the bill; and yet are attempting to unconstitutionally takeover one sixth of our economy while in the dark about the bill.  This is not only inadequate representation, it is also unconstitutional behavior.

If these actions by our elected representatives do not make you angry, you are not paying attention or you are getting your information from the wrong sources.  You need to join the angry mob, if only to defend the freedoms granted you in the constitution.  These freedoms are a bigger issue than little old healthcare.

Read Full Post »


Let’s for a moment put party labels aside.  The Republicans, Libertarians, independents, and the Democrats are no more, for the sake of this post.   Let’s look at politicians and advocates only as proponents of public sector or the private sector.

The proponents of public sector support the government’s caretaking of its people, either through public or co-op option medical care, providing money for car purchases, subsidizing power generation, and so on and so on—spending everywhere.

The private sector proponents seek growth of industry and economies, healthier paychecks for all, faith based options for caretaking, and wealth generation for reinvestment into greater wealth generation for all.

The public sector advocates want to spend resources on all sorts of programs but struggle with how to pay for the largess.  Remember the public sector produces nothing.  It is simply a drain on the economy and cannot be sustained.  Taxing the rich and businesses will generate funds for near term projects, but over time the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the cupboard runs bare.  There is a limit to how much money can be pulled out of an economy to pay for public sector programs—the limit is what gets put back into the economy to replace what was spent.  Remember as you grow the public sector you shrink the private sector.  Soon the private sector will disappear and the public sector will have to provide less and less for the populace—rationing.

Remember the empty store shelves in the Soviet Union?  Well this will happen here if the production economy does not grow.  Unless we find a way to grow our economy we will not survive.  This country has been a consumer and not a production economy for nearly 40 years.  All this has done is deplete our reserves, build debt, make the dollar weaker, and make us unable to replenish what we are spending—we simply consume.  As a nation will will run out of whatever wealth we have left.

Just look at how the government has reacted to the current fiscal crisis.  It was brought on by debt.  Now we are fixing the problem by growing the public sector and we are borrowing to get out of debt—does this make sense to anyone. We should have ignited the private sector by placing a moratorium of income taxes for two or three years—it would have cost the same as the unproductive stimulus, but it would have already begun paying big dividends.

 The private sector advocates want smaller government, with the government being a small drain on the results of the private sector economy.  If the private sector is supported by the government through lower taxes, less restrictive rules, use of natural resources that allow the private sector to produce, the economy will produce, export, grow jobs and this will feed on itself, as if it were a perpetual engine—okay I exaggerate a bit.

If this government fosters a strong small business segment and a somewhat controlled big business segment usually through competition, but with legitimate— not choking —government regulation, the private sector over the long term will grow, and provide prosperity.  Since the public sector produces nothing, and is a 100 % drain on resources, it can never produce prosperity, that is unless we can have a replay of the miracle of the loaves and the fishes .

There are those who say that profit is bad, well unless these anti-profit people can offer another way to grow and replenish an economy to continue to deliver these goods and services, private sector profit is the only way to go.  Remember, how long can government deliver these goods and services without replenishing what has been used?  Remember the Soviet Union store shelves. 

Now I make the leap to government medical care.  Forget about the lack of efficiency and effectiveness in anything the government does.  Let us simply look at the non-replenished resources from a stagnant public sector economy.  How much time will pass before medical rationing must occur in a service driven by an economy that does not grow—it only shrinks.

Anyone who has not as yet joined the flat earth society should seriously consider that when you vote for a representative, that representative should be a long term thinker and always vote to build and grow an economy by producing.  If the person is a short term thinker and only believes in picking the fruit from the tree without ever feeding or water it, then you will get the diminishing public sector option and everyone will be equally poor.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: