The Illness of Healthcare

Bittersweet would sum up my feelings about regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling for the “constitutionality” of the healthcare law, more popularly known as “Obamacare”.  Sweet because it was correctly challenged as unconstitutional by a majority of the states.  Bitter because of what this implies for America as a society and the prospective future we’re facing.  To put things in perspective; they are (progressives and “liberals”) now attempting to rationalize and constitutionalize the federal government making you, under threat of fine and force if necessary, purchase an arbitrary good from a private firm for the purpose to eliminate the number of medically uninsured people who cannot afford health insurance.  It was tyranny like this that has caused hundreds of thousands of Americans since the Founding of this country to give their lives to stave off, only to have the very people who’ve benefitted the most from their precious sacrifice unceremoniously throw it back in their faces in favor of the unlimited, totalitarian state.  To show how we got from “Give me Liberty or give me Death”, to dishonestly trying to prove a coercive federal healthcare mandate is constitutional would indeed take up many pages. Here we’ll try to boil it down to two main points plus explaining what the bill means and ultimately the logical conclusion it must play itself out to.  

            The first point we must cover is the how.  How did it all come to this?  Well first off the Supreme Court in this day and age tries to follow something they call precedent.  Precedent is basically using what former judges have ruled on in the past regarding a certain type of case they’re considering, and trying to apply the same legal reasoning and logic to a current case of the same type.  This is called the case method, and (allegedly) it brings uniformity to the legal cases considered because (allegedly) the same legal reasoning and rules are applied to all the cases of a given type.  So as one can see, what judges ruled on in the past (allegedly) has an effect on what the current judges do in the present.  When the Constitution was ratified these were the basic assumptions the conventions understood; that the Constitution only gave the federal government the explicitly enumerated powers actually written in the Constitution (woah there’s a thought), that those words meant what they actually said (very abstract I’m sure), and that the Constitution applied only to the federal government, not the states that composed and created it.  The main instrument the unconstitutionalist (liberals and progressives) use to implement their totalitarian vision are two clauses; the Due Process clause(s) found in the 14th and 5th amendment by means of “Incorporation” (see my other note), and the Commerce Clause found in Article One Section 8 of the Constitution.  This clause gives Congress the ambiguously defined power to “Regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Now how they get “forcing people under threat of monetary penalty or state coercion to buy a privately produced good” from the above stated Section is a study in intellectual dishonesty informed by a fanatical power-centric worldview (i.e liberalism/progressivism).  But the condensed version goes like this; over the last 150 years the federal government has methodically taken the Constitution, a devise created by the states to grant a central government limited enumerated powers to protect liberty, and turned it on its head using the above mentioned case-study method and hence explaining my generous usage of the word “allegedly”.  Court ruling after Court ruling went in favor of the federal government’s power grabs from overturning state laws, to regulating and eventually directing national economic activity, to social engineering projects the last 50 years until its inevitable logical conclusion; the federal government Constitutionally coercing you into buying an arbitrarily decided upon good.  Any casual study of history has shown the Supreme Court hasn’t been consistently right for a very long time.  For all you who are wondering how we can possibly know the answer to the constitutionality of a federal mandate on health insurance here’s a foolproof (hence why it’s lost on liberals) method of discovering the constitutionality of any proposed piece of legislation. 

Step 1; Take the end or purpose of the proposed legislation in Congress by reading the bill’s printed words.

Step 2; Open up a free copy of “the Constitution” and flip to Article One, Section Eight, “Powers granted to Congress” should assault your unsuspecting eyes, unless you have one of those “blank” or “living” Constitutions like the liberals seem to have.  If so, disregard entire note and check yourself in to the nearest asylum for treatment.  After treatment return to Step 1.

Step 3; Try to match the words in Step 1 with a clause in Step 2.  If there are no matches, then the answer to your question is, “No, Congress does not have the legal power to perform such an act”, therefore making it unconstitutional.

Anyone with functioning mental capacities (again, this excludes certain people) should be able to take this method and replicate it as many times as they see fit to ensure the actions their government is taking are constitutional (legal). 

The last topic we need to cover is the why.  Why would a certain contingent of the population think it is conducive to a free and prosperous society to pass a law giving the central government the power to issue arbitrary orders to the citizens to buy economic goods?  The answer is because we are dealing with people who believe in a totalitarian idea of the role of government.  They envision a god-state in control of all the material goods within a country that can distribute and redistribute them as they see fit, therefore ending all pain, suffering etc. and creating a more equal (they call it just) society.  This isn’t a new idea and has been tried before last century under different labels; the Fascist in Italy, the Kemalist in Turkey, the Bolsheviks in Russia, and the Nazis in Germany.  In America we have what is commonly called “modern liberalism” or more vulgarly, “liberals” who carry this torch of totalitarianism that emphasizes the importance of the collective instead of the sacredness of the individual and his liberties.  They do not care about individual liberty or freedom; instead they have placed their trust in egalitarianism of outcomes of the masses accomplished by the hand of the god-state, with them at the helm in the positions of power of course. 

Specifically, they know that this healthcare bill will eventually drive private insurers out of business because of the incentives for companies to drop their employees off their health insurance roles, leading to a single payer system for everyone where they control the strings on the who, what, when, where, and how much healthcare you get.  Ultimately this is all about power, not affordable healthcare.  They know it and most Americans are now becoming cognizant of this.  The power over someone’s healthcare backed by the force of the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion in society (i.e the state) basically equates to power over one’s life, the ultimate earthly power.  I believe we all know what was said about power and ultimate power so long ago….            



Simeon Burns

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *