Dear President Trump: I Don’t Want to be “the Party of Healthcare.” I Want to be the Party of the Constitution.

A federal judge in Texas recently ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional due to its mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance, and the Trump administration has decided not to defend the law, reigniting the “repeal and replace” battle lost by the Republicans following Trump’s election.  Speaking on the decision not to defend the law, Trump has declared that Republicans will become “the party of healthcare,” and while I am shaking my head in dismay, Barack Obama must be smiling to himself, because he knows that even if Democrats lose the battle over Obamacare, they will have won the war to make the federal government (and therefore taxpayers) ultimately responsible for healthcare.    

Obamacare was nothing more than a wealth-transfer scheme in which taxpayers were forced to subsidize health insurance for people who supposedly couldn’t afford it on their own.  I say supposedly because whether or not someone can “afford” something is a complicated question that requires a study of what choices they’ve made in life, and an assessment of whether or not they’re doing anything and everything they should be doing to assume full responsibility for themselves and their families.  Nothing like that happens in Obamacare or in any welfare program run by the geniuses managing our federal government.  The war fought by Obama and Democrats wasn’t over Obamacare, per se.  It was over whether it is the proper role of the federal government to ensure that all Americans have healthcare.  I am not 100% clear on what Trump means when he says Republicans will be “the party of healthcare,” but it’s difficult to see how that label restores the power of the people to be free of the federal government’s interference in our healthcare and in our wallets. 

I’ve written on this subject so many times that I feel like a broken record.  The only role the federal government legitimately has with respect to health insurance and healthcare is to ensure a free and fair marketplace.  To that end we should be pursuing tort reform, reducing the regulatory burden and paperwork mandates associated with healthcare, getting rid of barriers to competition and legislating transparency in healthcare pricing.  The federal government made sure that we know how many calories are in that cheeseburger we just ordered, but good luck finding out how many thousands of dollars that surgery is going to cost you.  A friend of mine was recently injured when her car was rear-ended.  Her medical bills are now close to $300,000 and she’s not done with her treatment.  Everyone, myself included, has a story about the outrageous medical bill they received for something.  Democrats and Obamacare did NOTHING to address the immoral scam that has become our health industry.  Instead they just found a way to pass the bill to someone else – hard-working, tax-paying strangers who have zero control over the health habits of the people they’ve been forced to subsidize.  That’s not only wrong, it continues our slide towards economic suicide.  If we could only have the good sense to take the steps that would restore rational, competitive pricing to healthcare, then it wouldn’t seem so crazy to make every capable citizen responsible for paying his own bills.  What a novel idea, eh? 

We MUST have the fight in this country to restore the Constitution and the limits of the federal government to use its citizens as a credit card.  Only when that happens is there any hope of Making America Great Again.  Good luck to us.

~CW

The post can also be viewed at the blog site The Pesky Truth.

Why Rand Paul Got It Wrong

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

            ~Oath of office for members of congress

An op-ed by Rand Paul was posted on Fox News today:

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: "The president acts like he's a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, 'If Congress will not act, then I must.'  Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I would literally lose my political soul if I decided to treat President Trump different than President Obama. (Although, I’ll note, not one Democrat criticized Obama for his executive orders.)  I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.  However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.  I was against foreign aid and foreign intervention without a true national security threat — under Republicans and Democrats.  I’ve stood up and voted against budgets that pile up endless debt and borrow too much — under Republicans and Democrats.  I will stand up for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances we have — under Republicans and Democrats.  Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power.

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding. First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders, and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?  As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.  But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.  Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.  Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

I, and many of my fellow members, called out President Obama for abusing executive authority. President Obama famously said that if Congress wouldn’t do what he wanted, he had his pen and his phone ready.  That was wrong.  Many of those voting now spent a good portion of their campaigns running ads against these words and actions of President Obama.  They will and should be condemned for hypocrisy if they vote to allow this because they want the policy or want to stand with the president in a partisan fight.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.  In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.  I look forward to working for a constitutional way to deal with our border security issue.

~Senator Rand Paul

Rand Paul makes some very valid points, but the flaw in his argument is this:  we are dealing with a rogue majority in congress that has made no secret of the fact that their actions are solely motivated by “resistance” to Donald Trump.  The definitive proof of this is that the very same members of congress who refuse to give this president the requested money for the border wall were fine and dandy with giving Barack Obama money for erecting walls at the border when Obama was POTUS.  The facts belie Democrats’ phony claims about walls being “immoral” or that “walls don’t work;” their blatant, spite-based use of our tax dollars as political weaponry is absolutely not how our government was intended to work, and it’s precisely why we have a crises at our border that’s led to a frustrated president’s declaration of emergency.

I’ve often written with outrage about Obama’s unconstitutional “pen and phone” actions that were a not-so-cleverly-veiled means of bypassing the legitimate will of congress, just as Senator Paul suggests; however, there’s no question that the Republican majority’s objections to DACA were consistent with their long-standing platform against illegal immigration.  At no time could anyone have ever made the case that Republicans had done an about-face on prior positions and misused their legislative powers for the simple purpose of spiting a president they disliked or for cynical political gain.

For the sake of “resistance” to Donald Trump, Democrats are selling our country out to people of other nations who disrespect our sovereignty and our inalienable rights to decide who enters our country and who does not.  What form will “resistance” take next?  Will they refuse to let Trump defend us militarily if we come under attack by hostile nations so as to deprive him of a “win,” the fate of the American people be damned?  Will they reject well-qualified, Trump-appointed patriots to posts within our government and compromise our protection and prosperity all in the name of childish “resistance?”  In fact, they already have.

Let me suggest, Senator Paul, that the fight over border wall money is just a symptom of the real emergency:  Democrats who are all-in on “resistance” at the expense of this nation and their fellow citizens.  Democrats have forsaken their oaths of office, and become enemies of the Constitution and all Americans who still embrace it.  This is just one more instance in which their side demands that we abide by the rule of law while giving themselves a pass to ignore it.  If it requires a declaration of emergency to fight back against such an enemy, then so be it.  This nation is truly in crisis.

~CW

This post can also be viewed that the conservative website, The Pesky Truth.

So What’s Wrong with Socialism?

"We have to say yes to socialism — to the word and everything.  We have to stop apologizing.”

~ Jim Carrey, on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”

“Medicare for all, ending student debt, ….it seems like if there is maybe a shining spot in this Trump tragedy, it’s that it’s made the Democrats sort of rediscover who they are.”

 ~Bill Maher

The appetite for socialism is on the rise again in America.  “Democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, once considered a marginalized, fringe player in U.S. politics, is now respected and revered by many inside one of this nation’s two major political parties.  Other “democratic socialists” like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are becoming rising stars in the Democrat Party as well.  When I read the comments following articles on Fox News about Ocasio-Cortez or on the subject of socialism in general, those in favor of socialism (a minority of readers at Fox, to be sure) typically answer the critics by pointing to the nation’s military or local police or fire fighters as positive examples of “socialism,” or they’ll talk about Social Security or Medicare or public schools.   With such a narrowly selective view of what it means to embrace socialism it’s no wonder people – particularly the young – are mystified by the critics.  So it’s time - yet again - to get some clarity on what socialism actually is and what’s wrong with it.

Socialism, per Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, is defined as follows: 

“Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

Let me repeat:  “…governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” 

That goes a tad bit beyond military, police and fire protection, or even Social Security, wouldn’t you say?  I’d like to point out the irony of this nation’s Left, so often critical of our military and police, using these services as their shining examples of socialism.  Now, I know that “democratic socialists” like Bernie Sanders attempt to distinguish socialism from “democratic socialism” by supposedly drawing the line at having government take physical control of the means of production; but when their plan is to tax the pants off of the producers to finance their socialist agenda, they are – for all practical purposes – making government the de facto owner of the means of production, correct?  Still, socialism apologists will read this with wide eyes and ask, “Gee, what’s wrong with that?  What’s wrong with sharing the wealth and making things more equal for everyone? What’s wrong with ‘social safety nets’ like Social Security and Medicare?”

This is where, as a critic, I’m supposed to point to the predictable human tragedy unfolding in Venezuela, where socialism was working just great until it wasn’t and now people are struggling just to survive.  Or I’m supposed to point to America’s national debt, now $22 TRILLION and rapidly climbing, and the prospect of an unimaginable catastrophe of our own when the bill for our “social safety nets” finally comes due (don’t worry, it’ll probably only happen to your children).  Or I’m supposed to give you a crash course in simple economics or human nature in the hopes that people will finally get it.  Or maybe I should talk about the dismal state of our public schools and how the Left has used the socialist nature of our education system to take almost complete control of it.  Sorry to disappoint you but I’m not here to argue the obvious flaws of socialism.  There’s no point in bothering the socialists with the realities of economics or human nature.  They just cover their eyes and refuse to see it.   

What’s wrong with socialism, “democratic” or otherwise, is that it is a complete contradiction to the notion of individual freedom that this nation was founded upon and that is supposed to be protected by our Constitution.  Maybe, just maybe, that’s why the Kavanaugh fight was so bitterly fought by the Democrats. 

Go back and read Merriam-Webster’s definition of “socialism,” or research the rhetoric from people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and take note that the word “voluntary” is conspicuously missing from that definition and from the Left’s passionate speeches.  That’s why “socialism” is a dirty word to those who read between the lines and truly comprehend the implications of it.  Socialism – democratic or otherwise – is forced wealth transfer, also known as “theft.”   When Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez excite their cheering crowds with their schemes for imposing socialism on this nation, people are actually cheering at the prospect of being able to legally steal from their fellow citizens.  Nice, eh?  To make it more palatable and side-step the sound logic against it the Left cunningly inserted the word “democratic” in front of “socialism” because changing the names of things that we rightfully associate with evil is what they always do.  “Democracy” - and the notion of voting – attaches positive feelings to something that amounts to the proverbial “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner,” as so brilliantly put by the eternally wise Benjamin Franklin.  Unfortunately community organizers like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are trying to supplant their own version of wisdom for that of Benjamin Franklin’s and all of the Founders who sought to preserve individual liberty.

There are times when it makes sense for us to do things as a unit, the military being the prime example which is why it is expressly provided for in the Constitution.  If and when our nation comes under attack or needs to assert itself militarily, what moron would argue that this can be done on an individual level?  But what excuse, other than wanting someone else to pay your bills, is there for socializing healthcare, retirement or a college education?  All of these things are attainable on an individual level as evidenced by the fact that people have been doing so for centuries.  There is no practical imperative that justifies depriving citizens of their freedom for such things.

The biggest rub of all when it comes to the Left’s attempts to turn us into a might-makes-right socialist nation is that they could have as much voluntary socialism as they want.  Nothing is stopping Bernie Sanders and his followers from pooling their resources for healthcare, retirement and higher education or anything else they want to socialize on their own.  They don’t need to persuade us to exercise that kind of freedom.  They could start tomorrow if they wanted to.  The problem is, they want our money and they want the power to control these things for everyone, as they do with public education; consequently our freedom to say “NO” is very annoying to them. 

Margret Thatcher’s famous quote, “Socialism is fine until you run out of other people’s money,” is often invoked as the simplest explanation for what’s wrong with socialism, but it is perhaps a bit too simple as it doesn’t fully capture her feelings towards socialism as well as this quote from Stephen Pollard for his  book review of Claire Berlinski’s “There Is No Alternative’: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters,” in which he wrote: 

“[Berlinski} is quite right, for example, to stress that Thatcher's crusade against socialism was not merely about economic efficiency and prosperity but that above all, ‘it was that socialism itself—in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied—was morally corrupting.’"

“Morally corrupting.”  Yep, I think that says it well. 

As for Jim Carrey and his call for us to “say yes to socialism,” this is precisely what we might expect from someone who makes his living talking out of his ass.

 

Just say NO to socialism.

~CW

To leave a comment please go The Pesky Truth where this essay is reposted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Why Should Women be More Liberal Than Men?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/28/a-closer-look-at-the-gender-gap-in-presidential-voting/

Whenever I hear stats that show women are more liberal than men, I am ashamed for my own gender which, for those who don’t know me, is female.  After nearly a century of fighting for the right to be seen as equals to men, too many of us have traded subjugation in the home and the work place for subjugation of our minds and souls to a political Party whose only objective is to grow their own power.  It is the worst of ironies to see women work so hard for a seat at the table in America’s boardrooms and government only to foolishly vote away their own liberty and autonomy at the ballot box.

The Democrat Party has turned women into children, or at least it’s trying to.  Democrats seduce women with promises of securing special treatment and insulating them from the consequences of their own life choices (by abortion on demand, for instance), but the price is steep.  The government handouts and freedom to be irresponsible are crumbs – to borrow a word from the inane Nancy Pelosi – compared to what is lost.  Yes, you might get more family leave – at the expense of others - or preference over men in occupations that are male-dominated so your company can meet some arbitrary quota forced upon them by your government, or birth control subsidized by your fellow citizens; but you sacrifice the character of your country in the process.  Justice is supposed to be blind, not weighted in favor of one race or gender over another.  Speech is supposed to be free, not denied to those with whom we disagree.  Slavery is something that we are supposed to reject, not suborn through targeted taxation.  And with each passing day it gets worse.  Are women so childishly shortsighted and selfish now that they will throw away the ingenious protections passed on to us all in our Constitution – at great sacrifice by our forefathers – for the scraps promised by the Democrat Party if you just help them secure the power they want?  It’s demoralizing to think that this is the case, but the reality speaks for itself.

I suspect that any liberal women who have the balls to read this post (hey – you wanted to be treated like men!) will scoff and sneer that what they’ve gotten in exchange for selling us out to the Democrat Party has been worth the while because it couldn’t otherwise be attained.  My response to that is:  Really???  You can’t compete with men based upon your own skills and intelligence?  You – strong, independent woman - can’t find a way to afford your own birth control, and you’re unwilling to personally sacrifice for the sake of raising your own family?  Is this what you want us all to believe?  If so, that’s truly pathetic.

I’d like to remind liberal women that George Soros is a male (only in a technical sense, of course).  So is Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, Keith Ellison and the majority of Democrats in congress.  They’ve used you to secure their own power, and Hillary Clinton tried to do so as well.  You are a pawn in the Democrat’s game of chess, when you could instead be the master of your own game if only you would find the self-discipline and character to resist the temptation to get what you can at others’ expense. 

Am I being too hard on liberal women? Is it possible they actually believe the Democrat Party has the pure-of-heart agenda they purport to have?  To believe that is to willfully disregard the evidence.  The party for “the environment” flies hither and thither in their corporate jets to their multiple homes and Martha’s Vineyard vacations, showing their true colors when it comes to environmental concern.  The party for “racial equality” now talks disdainfully about “old, white men,” hobnobs unapologetically with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan and cheers on groups like Black Lives Matter.  The party for “women’s rights” and #MeToo partied hardy with Harvey Weinstein, tried to elect for POTUS the loyal wife of a man with serious sex-related charges against him from multiple women, and leaked Christine Ford’s letter to the media with zero regard for how it would affect her.  That’s the reality of the Democrat Party.  That’s who they are, and if you can’t see it it’s because you are choosing not to. 

None of this is to say Republicans are perfect.  Far from it, usually.  But the critical ideals that this country was built upon – individual liberty, equal justice for all, the rule of law, free market capitalism, states’ rights, American sovereignty and autonomy – these are what must be sacrificed in order for the Democrat Party to thrive.  Are we to believe that men value these gifts more than we do?   If that’s the case then the “progressive” movement has failed women, because we’ve gone backwards.

~CW

To comment on this post please visit The Pesky Truth where it is reposted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

The Left’s Message to America: We Reject Democracy

Democracy:  a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

For as long as I can remember now the Left in this country has continually lowered the bar when it comes to standards of behavior, political discourse and political gamesmanship. From Ted Kennedy’s lying tirade against the superbly qualified Robert Bork…to Democrats’ partisan defense of Bill Clinton’s predatory ways against women…to Al Gore’s hissy-fit legal battle over his legitimate loss in the 2000 presidential election…to the first era of Derangement Syndrome (i.e. the complete absence of reason, fairness and objectivity) targeted at George W. Bush…to the “pen and phone” presidency of Barack Obama under which the Deep State grew and flourished and Democrats became at ease with being lied to by their government (remember their outrage over the Jonathan Gruber/Obamacare revelations?  Yeah, me neither)…to Harry Reid’s invoking of the “nuclear option”…to today’s Trump Derangement Syndrome which dwarfs BDS by perhaps a factor of ten, Democrats just keep lowering that bar.  And each lowering brings a rash of angry editorials, furious blog posts, radio diatribes and pseudo debates between TV talking heads as conservatives rightly denounce the Left’s actions but rarely – unless I’ve missed it – do they take the argument to its obvious conclusion, which is as follows:

The American Left rejects democracy and the concept of shared government by The People – All of the people

That reality is a critical point for everyone to understand because we live under the best system of government in the world designed by some of the brightest, wisest Americans who ever lived.  Actions speak louder than words, and by their actions the Left’s rejection of that system has been clearly  communicated again and again.  Consider all that we’ve witnessed in recent years:

Ongoing and increasingly vicious attacks on the free speech rights of conservatives;

The deliberate politicization of our judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, and disintegration of order and respect in the confirmation process when nominees are deemed to be a conservative;

The rise of groups such as Occupy Wallstreet and Antifa who anoint themselves as the arbiters of other peoples’ rights and who justify their lawless ways with made-up claims of fighting “fascism,” which they – not the dictionary - define;

The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement fueling anti-police sentiment and racial unrest;

The increased acceptance of legalized theft under the guise of “democratic socialism;”

Nefarious Deep State plots and desperate, mob-style vilification to undermine – and perhaps even remove - a legally elected POTUS;

The proudly touted “resistance” movement, embraced by leaders of the Left including Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, in response to a legitimately elected administration enacting a constitutional agenda; 

And last but not least, the lies, lies, lies, lies. 

The American Left has rejected democracy in every conceivable way except by formal declaration. Honesty is not their style.  These are, after all, not the sort of brave and principled people as those who formally declared their intention to separate from Mother England and were willing to fight and die for the rights they believed to be theirs back in 1776.  Instead, the American Left feigns allegiance to the Constitution and to our non-violent system of government crafted therein, all while continually engaging – once surreptitiously, now openly - in attacks meant to undermine that very Constitution and system of governance.  They are, in short, attempting a coup, and they’re only hoping we won’t notice or act until it’s too late.  Why?  Because the Left wants to enjoy the benefits and protections of our constitutional republic without all the pesky obligations that go along with it.  It is those obligations – the requirement to honor the Bill of Rights and abide by the law – that keeps the Right in check while the Left carries on with its evil intent.

And if you’re not angry yet, there’s something amiss with you.

It’s time to bring the reality of who we’re dealing with to the forefront of every debate and discussion that centers on politics, because without this understanding of what’s actually going on little else matters.  Democrats, and particularly those who hail from the far Left and self-describe as socialists or  “democratic socialists” (a term that’s meant to get past Americans’ instinctive aversion to socialism) should be asked point blank whether they stand with the Constitution as written or not and, after they lie, made to defend their actions that are contrary to their declaration.  We are in desperate need of daylight in this nation, because right now it’s so dark too many people can’t see the giant elephant that’s right there in the room.

~CW

Postscript:

Within an hour of my publishing this post we have this latest news item from Fox News:

“New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker injected chaos into Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing Thursday by releasing confidential Kavanaugh emails with the backing of fellow Democrats in possible violation of Senate rules, calling it an act of “civil disobedience” and drawing condemnation from the Republicans on the committee.”

Perfect example of what I’m talking about.  The bar is lowered yet again.  ~ CW

This post can also be seen at the blog site The Pesky Truth (link).

Healthcare, the Constitution, and Why are Republicans Such Fools?

Free Market Healthcare

NOT Free Market Healthcare

Any questions?

Can you imagine what it would be like if Republican politicians were put in charge of removing a stubborn Band-Aid from a child’s arm?

Republican #1:  “We can’t just rip off the Band-Aid!  It’s going to hurt and then her parents will be mad and our approval ratings will go down!

Republican #2:  “What if we brought in the finest surgeons (at taxpayers’ expense) to surgically remove her arm, rip off the Band-Aid, and then reattach the arm?”

Republican #3:  “That’s crazy!  Let’s just bring in a team of anesthesiologists (at taxpayers’ expense) to sedate the child, then rip off the Band-Aid while she’s sleeping.”

Republican #4:  “Or we could hire a circus (at taxpayers’ expense) to distract her while we rip the Band-Aid off!”

After recently postponing a vote on the Republican healthcare bill, Senate leader Mitch McConnell said, “This is a very complicated subject.”

I suppose it is complicated, but that’s in no small part because Republicans have exacerbated the problem with their foolish and misguided efforts to “fix” the Obamacare mess with the impossible, self-imposed condition of not upsetting anyone.   Furthermore, if not upsetting anyone is the goal, they’re failing miserably.  And apparently if anyone IS to be upset it can’t be the freeloaders who should be paying for their own healthcare, the insurance companies who conspired with Obama or the medical industry that profits so handsomely by gaming the system.  No, as always it must be middleclass taxpayers, most of whom already provide for their own insurance, who take the fall because these are the folks who can be depended upon to re-elect the same Republicans that keep failing them.  This is the insanity that is our Party.

The Supreme Court’s traitorous ruling notwithstanding, the federal government has no business involving itself in the healthcare of American citizens.   I know this in my heart and in my brain to be a fundamental and inarguable truth, because the evidence speaks for itself.  Just look at the mess that’s been made with respect to both our healthcare “system” (more on that later), the infinitely spiraling costs and the take-no-prisoners fighting that consumes both bodies of congress as they battle on behalf of their constituencies.  You don’t need to be an expert on the Constitution or on the Founding Fathers to see that this chaos and violation of our liberties is not the product of their design.   This is what the Constitution was supposed to protect us from.  As long as the federal government insists on inserting itself where it doesn’t belong and assuming powers that the Constitution does not expressly assign to it, chaos will always be just an election away, if not the everyday norm.  That is the principled, moral argument for repealing Obamacare.  It was wrong from the get go, therefore it must be undone.  But since so many Republicans no longer care about what is right or wrong according to the Constitution, I’ll make the practical argument as well.

The first problem with the “healthcare system” in the U.S. is that it was never supposed to be a “system.” “System” implies central planning, purposeful design and continuous regulation with the goal of producing a defined outcome.  None of this has historically been applicable to healthcare in the U.S. which, aside from the unique and polluting involvement of the insurance industry (more on that later), should be like any other consumer product bought and sold in the free market.  But the Left understands that a clever lie repeated often enough becomes the truth, and their nagging insistence, year after year, that the “healthcare system is broken” has turned myth into reality in a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.  How can the system be “broken” if the system doesn’t exist?  It was a slight of hand that enabled the federal government to justify meddling in something that the Constitution gives it no power to meddle in.  To whatever extent a U.S. “healthcare system” exists, it is not by design but by deceit and default.

One of the reasons Republicans are having so much trouble trying to cut and paste a bill that “fixes” healthcare, besides the fact that it’s outside the scope of authority of the federal government, is because they want to give voters the benefits of a free market without the negatives of a free market.  Insurance is supposed to be something you buy in case you get sick, not after you get sick.  That’s what makes it insurance.  A free market requires that you make trade-offs and sacrifices and establish priorities in your life.  Consequences, good and bad, are a necessary element of the free market system.  And here’s the really big rub:  Neither Obamacare nor the patchwork “fix” cobbled together by Republicans will “fix” healthcare because it does nothing to lower the real cost.  U.S. Healthcare costs are comparatively high due to:

Administrative costs

Defensive medicine costs

Drug costs

Impediments to competition in the market

Absence of a true consumer-producer relationship

That last one’s a biggie.  The educated consumer is a key factor to making products and services affordable, and yet it’s nearly impossible for the average person to be an informed and discerning consumer in a market dictated by deals between insurance companies and medical providers.  If congress really wants to meddle in something, paving the way to transparency and consistency in medical pricing would be a good start.  Defensive medicine costs and impediments to cross-state competition are also areas where congress could help the free market, if they would only do it instead of just talking about it.

Our reliance upon insurance companies who act as the middleman in nearly every doctor-patient transaction also inflates the cost of healthcare.  Insurance was originally designed to protect consumers from large and often unexpected healthcare costs.  Now it’s more of a payment processing system for everything from ingrown toenails on up, which means your doctor has to hire more staff to interface with insurance companies.

Finally, one in every five Americans gets their health care through Medicaid.¹   This is an outrageous and inexcusable breach of congress’s fiduciary obligation to American taxpayers.  The vast majority of Medicaid recipients could be and should be paying for their own healthcare, which they might actually be able to do if our merry meddlers in the federal government would ever focus their efforts on reducing the cost of medical services and insurance rather than simply transferring the cost from one person to another.

In sum Republicans aren’t doing themselves or the American people any favors by making the repeal of Obamacare so complicated.  This is the ideal time, with their approval ratings already low and expectations waning, to go bold and rip that Band-Aid off as quickly and cleanly as they can.  Let this be the congress that helps restore the Constitution rather than helping to kill it.

~CW

¹http://familiesusa.org/issues/medicaid/

To comment on this post please visit The Pesky Truth where it is reposted.  I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.  Thanks!