ObamaCare, Repeal, and the Constitutionality Issue
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
The question I ask today my fellow independent conservative is this... Does the image to your right really represent the truth? Or does it represent an illusion created by the political forces, both progressive and conservative, that want nothing more than to control your life based on a particular political ideology. Such ideology would be, as we have grown accustomed to seeing, based on their own political interests. Such interests as viewed through the lenses of their political prognosticators and or beneficiaries.
As politicians and the courts continue to scrutinize ObamaCare, perhaps one of, if not the most ill advised pieces of legislation since FDR's New Deal, answering the hypothetical questions asked above is of the utmost importance to our nations understanding of freedom. liberty, individual responsibility, the right to individual choice. Ultimately the answer could determine whether our founding principals survive and are carried on to future generations of Americans.
The question of constitutionality needs to be addressed. A determination by the Supreme Court must be made. Such decision should be made expeditiously. Flowing from the Court's determination of constitutionality the country can then move forward.
I would be remiss in not clearly stating my proclivities with respect to the issue at hand. I am firmly in agreement with the lower court(s) ruling that the law is unconstitutional and should be thrown out. Certainly, and without question, as it relates to the individual mandate. The United States Government has no right, moral or otherwise, to mandate individuals be required to purchase government provided healthcare insurance. PERIOD!
Now, having tipped my hat {as if you didn't already know where I stand}I have a philosophical question I would ask everyone. In considering the question it is important that preconceived idea's, whether they be conservative or liberal be left at the door. Critical thinking, honest analysis, and ultimately arriving at workable solutions is what is most important.
The Question:
Is the individual responsible, either morally or otherwise, for his brother's or sister's welfare and insuring their well being? Put another way... Are you your brothers (sisters) keeper?
If you answered yes to either of the afore-going questions you are an avowed progressive, socialist, Marxist and need read no further. If however, you stopped to seriously ponder the questions with an open mind, and to consider the proper role of government versus that of the individual to insure their well being then please read on.
As individuals we are ethically responsible for ourselves, and only for ourselves.. We have no right, natural or societally given to impose that responsibility upon another. We either rise or fall on the merits of our own individual effort and capabilities.
The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America when taken together insure the right to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That and the guarantee that we have, and shall retain the right of self government based on the principles enumerated in the Constitution.
With respect to ones current and future well being. The responsibility to insure we have a satisfactory means to take care of our health concerns rests with each individual, not with society at large, and certainly not with the government. In the same vein responsibility for providing satisfactorily for our senior years also rests with the individual. The decisions each individual makes, or, on the other hand choses to evade will ultimately determine their happiness during their retirement.
Individuals must take responsibility for their own needs and wants. Governments place is to oversee the existence of a civil society and enforce laws that will protect and preserve the peace and security of society. It is not now, nor has it ever been the responsibility of the state to insure all individuals are guaranteed equal results under the law. Rather the states roll is to insure only the equal opportunity under the law . Results are the responsibility of each individual to secure through their own efforts and perseverance.
It is my fervent desire and hope the Supreme eventually upholds the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. It is the desire of some 57 - 58% of the American people as well. The majority of our people recognize this is a bad law. They also see the corrupt system of waivers that have been given to over 500 entities exempting them from provisions of the bad law. Such is the reality of Obama and his administration's ethics. Paying back his cronies for supporting a bd law.
Having stated my position on Obama, his administration, and ObamaCare all in a singular sentence, I acknowledge that something ought to be done to improve both the availability and afford-ability of the best health system the world has ever known. Note I did not say the best health insurance system in the world. I said the best healthcare system, which is a plain, and usually undisputed claim by most. Exception of course being the progressive all intrusive government type of course.
It is true we need to do something to control healthcare costs. It is also true we need to improve the delivery of healthcare to more people at an affordable cost. Most agree with these statements. Our challenge as I see it is to find the avenue {or vehicle} that delivers the goods while preserving the freedom of choice all liberty minded individuals desire.
If Obama and the progressives were truly interested in working to design a system that preserves our foremost place in the world with respect to healthcare, and at the same insure increased afford-ability and thus availability, they would bring together doctors, insurance providers, pharmaceuticals, patients, researchers, attorneys, innovators in the field of health care and delivery, as well as legislators. Then they would actually listen to those that understand the situation on the ground.
As an independent conservative I know it is possible to design a system that mandates some government oversight and yet retains a market based competitive approach to doing business. A system that provides each individual the option of selecting a plan that fits their individual requirements rather than forcing them into a one size fits all scenario.
There are examples of systems that are working elsewhere today and may be a foundation for a uniquely American system. he Swiss have devised a system that accomplishes much os what both sides of the political aisle may be able to accept. Perhaps Der Leader ought to have sent a delegation of the above mentioned professionals and citizens to Switzerland to study their system. but then again Obama and minions already had their minds made up. The results was a decidedly unconstitutional and bad law.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will render a rational outcome to an otherwise rather stinky affair.
More on The Swiss System, and more here.
Discussions @ Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
As politicians and the courts continue to scrutinize ObamaCare, perhaps one of, if not the most ill advised pieces of legislation since FDR's New Deal, answering the hypothetical questions asked above is of the utmost importance to our nations understanding of freedom. liberty, individual responsibility, the right to individual choice. Ultimately the answer could determine whether our founding principals survive and are carried on to future generations of Americans.
The question of constitutionality needs to be addressed. A determination by the Supreme Court must be made. Such decision should be made expeditiously. Flowing from the Court's determination of constitutionality the country can then move forward.
I would be remiss in not clearly stating my proclivities with respect to the issue at hand. I am firmly in agreement with the lower court(s) ruling that the law is unconstitutional and should be thrown out. Certainly, and without question, as it relates to the individual mandate. The United States Government has no right, moral or otherwise, to mandate individuals be required to purchase government provided healthcare insurance. PERIOD!
Now, having tipped my hat {as if you didn't already know where I stand}I have a philosophical question I would ask everyone. In considering the question it is important that preconceived idea's, whether they be conservative or liberal be left at the door. Critical thinking, honest analysis, and ultimately arriving at workable solutions is what is most important.
The Question:
Is the individual responsible, either morally or otherwise, for his brother's or sister's welfare and insuring their well being? Put another way... Are you your brothers (sisters) keeper?
If you answered yes to either of the afore-going questions you are an avowed progressive, socialist, Marxist and need read no further. If however, you stopped to seriously ponder the questions with an open mind, and to consider the proper role of government versus that of the individual to insure their well being then please read on.
As individuals we are ethically responsible for ourselves, and only for ourselves.. We have no right, natural or societally given to impose that responsibility upon another. We either rise or fall on the merits of our own individual effort and capabilities.
The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America when taken together insure the right to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That and the guarantee that we have, and shall retain the right of self government based on the principles enumerated in the Constitution.
With respect to ones current and future well being. The responsibility to insure we have a satisfactory means to take care of our health concerns rests with each individual, not with society at large, and certainly not with the government. In the same vein responsibility for providing satisfactorily for our senior years also rests with the individual. The decisions each individual makes, or, on the other hand choses to evade will ultimately determine their happiness during their retirement.
Individuals must take responsibility for their own needs and wants. Governments place is to oversee the existence of a civil society and enforce laws that will protect and preserve the peace and security of society. It is not now, nor has it ever been the responsibility of the state to insure all individuals are guaranteed equal results under the law. Rather the states roll is to insure only the equal opportunity under the law . Results are the responsibility of each individual to secure through their own efforts and perseverance.
It is my fervent desire and hope the Supreme eventually upholds the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. It is the desire of some 57 - 58% of the American people as well. The majority of our people recognize this is a bad law. They also see the corrupt system of waivers that have been given to over 500 entities exempting them from provisions of the bad law. Such is the reality of Obama and his administration's ethics. Paying back his cronies for supporting a bd law.
Having stated my position on Obama, his administration, and ObamaCare all in a singular sentence, I acknowledge that something ought to be done to improve both the availability and afford-ability of the best health system the world has ever known. Note I did not say the best health insurance system in the world. I said the best healthcare system, which is a plain, and usually undisputed claim by most. Exception of course being the progressive all intrusive government type of course.
It is true we need to do something to control healthcare costs. It is also true we need to improve the delivery of healthcare to more people at an affordable cost. Most agree with these statements. Our challenge as I see it is to find the avenue {or vehicle} that delivers the goods while preserving the freedom of choice all liberty minded individuals desire.
If Obama and the progressives were truly interested in working to design a system that preserves our foremost place in the world with respect to healthcare, and at the same insure increased afford-ability and thus availability, they would bring together doctors, insurance providers, pharmaceuticals, patients, researchers, attorneys, innovators in the field of health care and delivery, as well as legislators. Then they would actually listen to those that understand the situation on the ground.
As an independent conservative I know it is possible to design a system that mandates some government oversight and yet retains a market based competitive approach to doing business. A system that provides each individual the option of selecting a plan that fits their individual requirements rather than forcing them into a one size fits all scenario.
There are examples of systems that are working elsewhere today and may be a foundation for a uniquely American system. he Swiss have devised a system that accomplishes much os what both sides of the political aisle may be able to accept. Perhaps Der Leader ought to have sent a delegation of the above mentioned professionals and citizens to Switzerland to study their system. but then again Obama and minions already had their minds made up. The results was a decidedly unconstitutional and bad law.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will render a rational outcome to an otherwise rather stinky affair.
More on The Swiss System, and more here.
Discussions @ Memeorandum
Morally - yes, legally - no.
ReplyDelete"Are we our brothers keeper?" is a moral question, which will get a difference answer from different generations, depending on the character of that generation. The WW II generation said yes. Our generation seems to want to say no. They won't come out and say no, but they have said yes to starving the government of the money needed to continue these programs. A dangerous and irresponsible action, leaving our country bankrupt. Yes I consider 15 trillion in debt, basically bankrupt. If we want to eliminate these programs, fine, but not while we still use them (receive benefits). If we consider ourselves a moral, caring, Christian nation the answer would be yes. If no, then we must give up the idea we have pronounced to the World for centuries, that we are. The idea of these programs went beyound a moral question for the WW II generation. They lived and saw the idea that, that kind of unmet basic needs created an instability in our country. An instability just as dangerous as a military attack.
ReplyDeleteFirst... Those who are honest with themselves will admit they are, and should be their own keeper. Following this they become their families keeper, in the sense they provide the necessary essentials to bring their offspring to adulthood giving them the tools to become their own keeper. Any other way is IMO wrongheaded and foolish.
DeleteFrom this you may feel free to draw what conclusions you will.