Posted on 12/24/2009 5:08:09 AM PST by LS
Folks, I hate to be a perpetual gloomster here, but anyone putting his faith in a Supreme Court reversal of any of this health non-care monstrosity has another think coming. First, the USSC seldom rules in favor of constitutionally limited government. Even in the Affirmative Action slapdown of the University of Michigan several years ago, the Court said in essence, “what you’re doing is wrong the way you’re doing it, but try other methods to reach racial balance.” In the notorious Kelo case, the Court affirmed the right of a local government to take land from one person and give it to another solely on the basis of efficient use of the land.
So prepare yourselves: the challenges to the health non-care bill will be on the grounds of inequality—that is, Nebraska got a special deal—or various “takings” that say that the Federal Government is taking money without constitutional authority. While valid in and of themselves, even if successful, they will result in a nit-picking approach that legitimates the entire premise that a) health care is a “right” and b) everyone else is forced to pay for your right.
Moreover, on the Fox Business Channel, a roundtable of analysts debated the impact on business, and this raises yet another danger of ever repealing this, namely it was argued that small businesses will simply pay the $750 fine rather than pick up the $9,000 health care tab for employees, foisting it on the federal government. I’d do the same if I was a small business owner, but this avoids the central point that the government will instantly adjust those fines to be $10,000. Once something is deemed illegal, the fine is the easiest thing to manipulate—just look at speeding fines.
The Republicans, both in the House and Senate, combined for a 256/257 votes against the bill (Cao, LA voting for the House version, but announcing he would vote against the conference bill). I don’t want to ever, ever again hear how the two parties are the same. You will never see such a stark difference in ideology, where even the limp-wristed RINOs voted against this horrid legislation. Elections do have consequences.
That said, the next election can swing dramatically the Republicans’ way, and make little difference. First, it’s darn near impossible to withdraw or repeal legislation once the bureaucracy starts to take root. Rush Limbaugh has explained this quite well. Second, the ideological commitment to take something away that has already been given requires an increased factor of two or more—look at how long it took to get rid of just some of the farm welfare programs, which lasted from the New Deal to 1994. No conservative president or congress has ever dismantled the Department of Education or Department of Energy.
But here’s the real genius of the Democrats’ plan, and it has even escaped some of our conservative commentators: Why did the Democrats put in place the taxes immediately, but the benefits only after 2014? Isn’t that the exact opposite of the FDR strategy of carrots first, sticks later?
In fact, the Democrats are well aware of the Tea Parties, which are now going to work against liberty. Here’s how: by passing the stimulus first and ballooning the deficits—which the Tea Parties and Liberty Groups became obsessed with (rightly so)—the Democrats will now run specifically on the tax increases as a means to battle the deficits and claim that any attempt to repeal any of this health non-care bill will be fiscally irresponsible and will result in higher deficits. I don’t know if it will work, but it’s the only play they have right now, and Republicans, running on dismantling the health non-care system will be fighting both the image of taking health care away from granny AND “spending more money.”
What’s the solution? There are only two avenues that I can see. One is to not only elect Republicans (and ONLY Republicans, because third parties are going to destroy any chance of repealing this by electing more Democrats), but to elect so many conservative Republicans that you actually get a massive majority in the House to the point that they can, and will, de-fund any and all parts of this. That’s a very, very tough row to hoe, because Newt tried it in 1995 and was permanently damaged by it. And we’re talking a very big majority—perhaps 60-100 new seats. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not right now. The other alternative is a massive citizen strike, of such tremendous proportions that you pull a reverse “Piven-Cloward.” This is the radical Left strategy of so overloading the social welfare system that it breaks down and forces a radical revolution. (If no one gets their welfare checks, they take to the streets).
Lots of people have been blustering that they won’t pay their taxes, or will “go to jail” rather than follow parts of this bill—and absolutely a black market in medicine and drugs will appear—or otherwise refuse to comply with regulations. The problem with this approach is that the new legislation is going to be regulated and policed almost entirely either by the IRS or by employers. So it shifts the burden of civil disobedience from the many to the few who have the most to lose (owners), while at the same time taking the resolution of all protests out of the hands of citizen juries and into the hands of the government (the Tax Man).
If the Liberty Groups/Tea Parties were smart, they’d fold up their tents and attempt to get a two-thirds GOP majority in both houses, which is our last, best hope.
“ Reform’ Bill's likely legacy
We can't say with assurance that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was unpopular — Gallup didn't start polling until 81 years later. But the results of the next election were pretty convincing: The Republican Party was suddenly created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the 1854-55 elections transformed the Democrats’ 159-71 majority to a 108-83 Republican margin. Democrats didn't win a majority of House seats for the next 20 years.
On the health-care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010 elections as they did in 1854.
Nor did the Kansas-Nebraska Act settle the issue it addressed. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers fought it out in “bleeding Kansas,” and Douglas felt obliged to break with the Democratic administration and disown election-stealing by the pro-slavery side"
2 arguments that Republicans have made:
1) Obamacare is unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. Insurance is a state issue.
2) We should have federally mandated tort reform and removal of restrictions on interstate health insurance purchases.
Aren’t those 2 arguments inconsistent? Either states can control insurance for their people or they can’t.
The Dems’ positions are inconsistent too.
“The solution is secession.”
Personally, I’d prefer this to revolution. Pick a couple states, draw a line and let the godless, liberal, banana-republic eat itself.
I susspect it would be like Israel and constantly under attack of the emerging, global non-representative government.
So much of this stuff seems difficult to predict. I will only say that when everything goes sideways, it is going to happen very quickly.
I believe you are correct. There is only one solution, it worked for the founding fathers, it’ll work for us as well.
He did not have a Repub majority in COngress though.
Me shell Obama, and Eric Holder.
Yup, that hurt him too. But at leats he tried.
He voted for Rmoney care (same thing), He was on Laura Ingrahm’s show telling all of America how great Romney care is. His website from his time running for state senate tell his positions on green incentives, abortion, gun control and health care very well.
RINO to the degree of Snowe Colins or Grahm
What of the “Seperation of Powers”? Powers not granted by the Constitution are given to the states. There is a Constitutional boundary which they have crossed. The Federal Gov’t cannot force anyone to buy insurance. This will be challenged in court.
Does anyone really think that Congress is going to collect excessive taxes for the next 4 years that are intended for Healthcare without raiding it for yet another massive spending program? They just created another sucker tax for the General "slush" Fund that is already full of I.O.U.'s from Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare along with an additional 12.4 Trillion Dollars of debt hanging over it.
No.
Read this:
“CBO: Real 10-Year Cost of Senate Bill Still $2.5 Trillion
The Democrats are irresponsibly and disingenuously claiming that the bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years. But that's not what the CBO says. Rather, the CBO says that $871 billion would be the costs from 2010 to 2019 for expansions in insurance coverage alone. But less than 2 percent of those “10-year costs” would kick in before the fifth year of that span. In its real first 10 years (2014 to 2023), the CBO says that the bill would cost $1.8 trillion — for insurance coverage expansions alone. Other parts of the bill would cost approximately $700 billion more, bringing the bill's full 10-year tab to approximately $2.5 trillion — according to the CBO.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2411500/posts
And this:
Change Nobody Believes In
A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html
This will be solved only by the spilling of blood.
They are saying access is a right. Access to what. There will be free access but no Doctors. That is how Socialism works. Everything is free but there isn’t any.
This is something Israel has to deal with every single day. If they are determined enough to do it, then so are we if we need to.
I still hope and pray to God that things turn around, but realistically speaking, it isn't looking good.
Refefence the last sentence of your post # 33.
You are correct. And from what I have seen, it will not happen. By and large, there will be compliance. There may and probably be isolated resistance and those will be crushed but, I will die as a free man. And as a personal observation, that will be preferable to me than living as an obama slave.
Even as late as 2000 they could have not gotten away with this. It just shows how far into a slave mentality we have slipped as a Nation in the last 10 years.
The likelihood that this will be overturned on "inequality" grounds is very very low. Because where do you draw the line? To say that the congress must treat all states equally, would tie their hands to respond to a Katrina, or to do almost anything. Even simple road projects would become a nightmare of equality testing.
However, if this mandates the states to do something that is reserved to the states by the tenth amendment, that could be successfully challened. That has clear legal precedent.
Of course, the Federal government normally does not mandate, but provides matching funds, to incent a state to follow the federal program. A state that refuses is penalized, because their people are still being taxed by the federal government, but the state is not getting a share of the Federal funds back.
I suspect, that there are grounds to challenge this bill as being a mandate, not merely an incentive, to the states in a non-enumerated area.
We could challenge the use of conditional funds predicated on behavior not enumerated by the tenth, as being tantamount to a mandate. I don't know if it has ever been done. That would be far more useful in reigning in an out of control Federal government.
However, it would have major repercussions to existing programs, including Medicare. So a court's willingness to rule in favor on this is doubtful. And again, the court would have to decide where to draw the line somewhere.
And there is the danger that deprived of the use of matching funds, that the federal government would simply up the taxes, and fund the program entirely with Federal dollars, creating an insurmountable competition to any private or state programs.
Perhaps we could argue that healthcare represents such a large percentage of a state government's budget, that it is tantamount to a mandate. But again, if 10% of a state goverment's budget is a mandate, is 0.001% also mandate?
I am not ready to fold up my Tea Party tent and call it a day.
I would bet the republicans had to tie down the likes Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Kay Bailey Hutchison to keep them from voting Yes to Healthcare.
Republicans better make up their minds if they are for pricipled conservatism first, or republican party first. I won’t vote for a Democrat in republican clothing, so get it right the first time!
What makes you think that God cares about this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.