Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

<< Stupid software tricks | Main | She runs! >>

We’re having the wrong debate

If you read this blog at all, you know that I’m absolutely against government funded healthcare programs – at least at the federal level. The Constitution doesn’t authorize them so we shouldn’t even be having the debate about whose plan is better, or whether the program will be cost neutral or not.

The power to create a government funded healthcare program lies with the States. That’s if they want to do it and if their own constitutions allow it. So instead of having a national debate on the issue we ought to be able to focus on the merits and deficiencies of such plans at a local level.

It’s not as if any of that matters in modern day America. The so called “Obamacare” program won’t be the first federally mandated and funded entitlement program that isn’t authorized by the Constitution yet still created by the federal government, and it probably won’t be the last. We may see this one go down in flames, but it’s a sure bet that if we do we’ll see something like it proposed again and again until the federal government controls our health care decisions for us.

That is after all the nature of political “progress” in this country – the people that want bigger government and more government control over the lives and pocketbooks of the citizenry don’t stop just because they’ve been beaten once. The opposition to the expansion of government is portrayed as cold-hearted and evil. They’re trying to keep you from having what you need – they’re blocking progress!

Giving a reasoned analysis of the pros and cons of an unconstitutional measure is the wrong approach to blocking it, and yet that’s what the Republicans have been doing for decades. The first question we ask shouldn’t be “Will this work?” or “How much is it going to cost?” or even “Who supports it and who opposes it?” but rather “Is it permissible?”. If the answer to that question is “No” then we shouldn’t even need further debate – Congress should drop the matter entirely.

You and I know good and well that that’s not going to happen. Our Constitution is nothing more than a piece of parchment with plain words and fancy writing on it. Those words are fading and becoming less legible as time passes and the parchment and ink age. It’s a good bet that many of the politicians that swear to uphold it haven’t even read it. How else to explain their poor showing on the ISI civics literacy quiz?

And so it is that asking the question “Is it permissible?” is likely to get a Congressman shouted down by his peers. Asking the question “Is it permissible?” results in attacks on the questioner’s character – they’ll be accused of racism, of ageism, of sexism, even of homophobia. They’ll be painted as a NAZI (Remember the Bush = Hitler bumper stickers?), or caricatured as a chimpanzee (Yes, I’m aware of the Democratic outrage over the comparison of President Obama to a chimpanzee. Where was that outrage when liberals painted President Bush as a chimpanzee?). Marginalized and demonized while our government violates its own laws to spread propaganda in support of – more government.

Thanks to the way that the various bills have been crafted the so called “non partisan” Congressional Budget Office has declared them to be “revenue neutral” over ten years. That’s an amazing thing for a program that is estimated to cost trillions of dollars. I have to ask – how is that possible? But then I find out that costs go up after ten years according to some estimates, and the CBO doesn’t look past ten years.

Look at the history of such programs in the United States for a moment. Has the cost of the Medicare program met projections? I think it’s pretty clear that it has not. In fact, by any measure the costs of the program have far exceeded the estimated costs.

Is this program really about health care or is it about getting more government control over our health care decisions? On the surface it’s about health care, but behind the scenes it’s about getting more government involvement. Yesterday the Senate voted on a bill to increase payments to Doctors serving Medicare patients.

Mr. Reid said the bill, by averting big cuts in physician fees, guaranteed that doctors would continue accepting Medicare patients.

The bill went down in flames – despite the “good intentions” of those using it as a way to ease support for the major health care “reform” bills. Was it rejected because federal entitlement programs aren’t authorized by the Constitution? No. It was rejected because it didn’t include any funding sources for those payments, and Republicans couldn’t support it – even a few Democrats wouldn’t support it. The bill failed 53 to 47.

By addressing doctors’ fees in a separate bill, Senate Democrats could hold down the cost of the broader health legislation, keeping it within the limits set by President Obama. House Democrats are considering a similar tactic. Republicans said it was a transparent ploy to hide the cost of a health care overhaul.

Even the New York Times (the source of the quotes above) recognizes these tactics for what they are – nothing but a shell game. With games like this, can we really trust the CBO’s statement that this “reform” will be revenue neutral? I don’t think so. But – even if these programs are revenue neutral the question we should be asking isn’t “How much will it cost?” but rather “Is it permissible?”. As far as I can tell from a plain reading of the Constitution and all of its amendments the answer to that question is “NO”. That won’t stop our politicians though.

It doesn’t matter which side of the political argument you’re on anymore it seems. Both sides of just about every argument use the same tired playbook. Even the Heritage Foundation seems to have gotten into the act. When I began writing this post, it was because of something I read in today’s “Morning Bell”, a newsletter sent by email about the issues of the day.

Yesterday’s vote marks a significant failure of the Left’s special interest approach to passing Obamacare. From the beginning, the White House thought that if it bought off all of the business interests involved (the American Medical Association, the drug industry, health insurers, hospitals, etc.) opposition to the plan would whither. In one sense, the plan worked. USA Today reports PhRMA, Pfizer, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Federation of American Hospitals have all ponied up millions of dollars for lobbying and television ads in support of Obamacare.

That quote comes directly from the email they sent. This statement… “USA Today reports PhRMA, Phizer, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Federation of American Hospitals have all ponied up millions of dolors for lobbying and television ads in support of Obamacare” had me wondering “Do they support it or not?”

I was going to title the post “Do they support it or not?” based on Heritage’s statement that these organizations were reportedly lobbying for Obamacare while Speaker Pelosi and others demonize them as opposing it. That is, I was until I actually followed the link to the USA Today story. The actual story does talk about the record pace of expenditures by these groups on lobbying efforts. But… the article says those lobbying efforts are against the proposals in the various bills.

The first link – the one that says “if it bought off all of the business interests involved” – actually supports the point of view that the Heritage Foundation is presenting. The second one though directly contradicts the statement that they make.

The insurance industry opposes efforts to create a government-run insurance plan to compete with private firms and leveled attacks against a bill approved last week by a key Senate committee.

Or does it? From the same article…

"We're now at a critical moment in this debate," said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the health insurance trade group. Insurers, he said, will "continue to talk to the American people about what these reforms mean to them and what it will take to achieve bipartisan, comprehensive health care reform."

So the question here isn’t “Do they support it or not?” but rather “Who do you believe?” (Is it “Who” or “Whom” do you believe? I always have trouble with that one, and modern usage seems to go both ways.)

I don’t support the current form of the health care reform package being considered by Congress. My antipathy toward it has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or demerits of the proposal. I could care less whether the insurance companies are for or against it. I’m not really worried about whether some people will get more or less coverage. I don’t even care whether it’s true that there will be “death panels” making decisions about end of life care for senior citizens or whether illegal immigrants will get care.

Yes, all of those things are important. Any health care plan should be managed in a cost effective way. Any health care plan should consider the patient and the health care provider above and beyond the needs of the insurance industry. People who have lived long lives and paid into the system for most of them should continue to receive care without having to worry that someone else will make quality of life decisions for them. A person’s immigration status doesn’t really have anything to do with their need for care. People should be responsible for paying their fair share for health care, and failing to get coverage when it’s available is irresponsible.

Even so, none of those issues is really relevant to me. By focusing our attention on them rather than on the simple question of Constitutional authority, both Democrats and Republicans have agreed on one thing. That’s that someday in the future, maybe sooner maybe later, we’re going to have a federal health care program – the rule of law be damned.

We’re having the wrong debate folks. The debate we should be having is over whether we want to continue under the Constitution, or continue outside of it as we’ve been doing for over a century and a half.

The Constitution of the United States of America. Do you support it? Or not?

Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1378
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2009/10/22/1378.aspx

David responded with:

As you may well know *cough* I am in complete agreement with your constitutional argument. In spades. Who/Whom? Who=subject; whom=object. Think he/him. But really, "who" has become acceptable in almost all cases.

Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN Retired responded with:

Just a question for this. How is my Tricare affected in the entire mix. Is it constitutional or not? I do know that I earned it with those twenty years of service. It was that, stay in for twenty years and your country will take care of you promise I got in 1973. But since my senators and representative are republican, they don't even have the answers due to the shenanigans of the democratic-socialists. Any assistance/guidance on this would be welcome from any and all.

Perri Nelson responded with: Tricare...

I would assume that your Tricare is one of the few legitimate health care packages that our government has gotten involved in. You see, the Constitution does authorize Congress to "...raise and support Armies..." and to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". I would assume (and what a mistake that might be) that this includes everything from setting the pay scale to establishing what benefits will be provided to those who serve. In any case, one of the primary duties of the federal government is to provide for the general defense of the United States. Even the Democrats haven't completely abrogated that responsibility yet. The people have a moral obligation to those that protect and serve our country. While military budgets may be cut, or misused by either party, I still hold out hope that "support for the troops" will remain. Of course, no one can tell for sure what a politician will do in the name of expediency - can they?

Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN Retired responded with:

I intend to use this as an argument when dealing with my congress critters. Many thanks!

Bookmark this on Delicious 

Comments to this entry are closed.

<< Stupid software tricks | Main | She runs! >>