The other day I stood across the street from Congressman Jim Cooper's (D-TN) office to show that I am another American that believes we do need reform but that a public option is not the right fix. Rep. Cooper has refused to meet with his constituents in a public forum during the entirety of the August recess, so the public showed up to voice their opinion on legislation that will essentially lead to government controlled healthcare. Sounds like the congressman does not want to be held accountable. Don't worry Mr. Cooper, your accountability will be in the 2010 ballot box.
This notion that the government will be able to drive down cost by offering a public plan actually sounds like a really good idea--so was Karl Marx's 'Communist Manifesto'. What you don't hear about is the fact that a government run option will do more damage than it will do good. That plan will lead to a severe cut into the free market incentive that our nation has been built on. It will strangle private insurance and force a vast majority of the population into the public option thus leading to government controlled healthcare. It will, and I say WILL lead to some form of rationing, since it is entirely impossible to give everyone, everything--thus the reason socialism ALWAYS fails. Don't take my word for it, ask the recipients of government run healthcare in developed nations like Great Britain and Canada, and try to name one country where Socialism has worked for the greater benefit of the people.
We need to start talking about things like portable health insurance, tort reform and less federal regulation that prohibits the free market to actually function in a capitalist manner. This will do two important things; it will stabilize and drive down the cost of private insurance, and it will reinforce the incentive motive to offer better insurance and better health care. Competition always produces better options. Trust the ingenuity of the American people, not the horrible track record of government run programs.
The federal government has failed at medicare, medicaid, social security and now "cash for clunkers" to name a few. The first three are on the verge of bankruptcy leaving nothing for future generations, and the latter by admittance of the federal government is lagging because they did not realize how much manpower it would take to process the program from consumer, to dealer to government reimbursement. Seriously!? They couldn't put a program together successfully that has to deal with miles per gallon, but they want us to trust them with healthcare--which accounts for over 1/6th of the U.S. economy. And not only are they asking for our trust, they want it fast, they want it now, and they are even threatening to ram it through on a parliamentary procedure called "reconciliation" or the "nuclear option" which requires only a simple majority vote and no room for honest, open debate, regardless of the fact that poll after poll shows that a growing majority of American's do not want the current plan offered by the government.
Aside from the American electorate being against the current healthcare legislation, Congress has absolutely no right to even make a decision regarding private citizens choices when it comes to things like healthcare. Those things are reserved to the states and to the people. There seems to be this trend of disregard for the Constitution of the United States. It is still a relevant and governing document that limits the powers of the Congress to certain enumerated rights--see Article I Section 8. The only provision that the left can point to is the welfare clause. It's used twice when referring to the powers of the federal government. Once in Article I Sec. 8, and another in the preamble.
Here's a refresher on the preamble:
We the people of the United States in order to from a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution of the Unites States of America.
The function right before the "promote the general welfare" is "provide for the common defense". The word "provide" and "promote" were picked on purpose by our founding fathers. It's no secret that they often for long hours argued over the verbiage to be used in the Constitution. "Provide" means they will do it, "promote" means they will do things that will encourage the people to do it. They are only authorized to do things that will promote the free market principles to regulate the welfare, not provide healthcare so that the free market cannot compete.
Another case in point. If healthcare being a right means the government should provide it. Then our right to bear arms means the government should provide free guns to all citizens payed for with taxpayer money. Alas, free guns for all!
Think about it.
Posts
