The Supreme Court and Obamacare--Ron Paul's Weekly Update for April 2nd 2012

[ubaru]

Quote of the month: "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this economic state of ignorance." --Murray Rothbard

The Supreme Court and Obamacare

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of the Obamacare law, focusing on the mandate requiring every American to buy health insurance or pay fines enforced by the IRS. Hopefully the Court will strike down this abomination, but we must recognize that the federal judiciary has an abysmal record when it comes to protecting liberty. It’s doubtful the entire law will be struck down. Regardless, the political left will continue its drive toward a single-payer, government run health care system.

The insurance mandate clearly exceeds the federal government’s powers under the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This is patently obvious: the power to “regulate” commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way.

The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state-- a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.

But the Supreme Court has utterly abused the commerce clause for decades, at least since the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v. Filburn. In that instance the Court decided that a farmer growing wheat for purely personal use still affected interstate commerce--presumably by not participating in it! As economist Thomas Sowell explains in a recent article, the Wickard case marked the final death of federalism: if the federal government can regulate “anything with any potential effect on interstate commerce, the 10th Amendment’s limitations on the power of the federal government virtually disappeared.”

It is precisely this lawless usurpation of federalism that liberty-minded Americans must oppose. Why should a single swing vote on the Supreme Court decide if our entire nation is saddled with Obamacare? The doctrine of judicial review, which is nowhere to be found in Article III of the Constitution, has done nothing to defend liberty against extra-constitutional excesses by government. It is federalism and states’ rights that should protect our liberty, not nine individuals on a godlike Supreme Court.

While I’m heartened that many conservatives understand this mandate exceeds the strictly enumerated powers of Congress, there are many federal mandates conservatives casually accept. The Medicare part D bill-- passed under a Republican President and a Republican House--mandates that you submit payroll taxes to provide prescription drugs to seniors. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, also passed by Republicans, mandates that companies expend countless hours of costly manpower producing useless reports. Selective service laws, supported by defense hawks, mandate that young people sign up for potential conscription. I understand the distinction between these mandates and Obamacare, but the bigger point is that Congress routinely imposes mandates that are wildly beyond the scope of Article I, Section 8.

Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles. We must forcefully oppose lawless government, and demand a return to federalism by electing a Congress that legislates only within its strictly limited authority under Article I, Section 8.


I'm posting Ron Paul's position on the topics of the day so that people can get to know him.

To hear Ron Paul reading this message call 1-888-322-1414 updated every Sunday night.
Click here to view more Texas Straight Talk articles

[theindependenteye]

Dear Ubaru--

Since you see the Affordable Healthcare act as an abomination, what are your own ideas about what should be done (and if not by the gov't then by whom?) to deal with the state of health care in this country?

Before becoming eligible for Medicare, we were paying more for health insurance than for our mortgage, and because of a diagnosed condition that's never manifested any symptoms or costs, I could find only one carrier. Presently, if we weren't on Medicare, we'd be in serious financial straits. Millions have no coverage whatever or avoid any care unless their legs are rotting off. I'm sure you know the statistics.

The solutions I've seen, other than single-payer (which obviously I'd support and you would not), are (a) get rich; (b) live an incredibly healthy lifestyle far distant from toxic waste sites, have no accidents or genetic defects or communicable diseases; (c) never go to Western doctors; or (d) pray. Somehow I find these inadequate.

So do you have better ideas? From your quoted material I get the sense that since there's no Constitutional license (other than the Preamble) for the Gov't to promote the general welfare, we should just let it all go to hell except in those areas where a profit can be made.

Pardon if I sound sardonic, but I see the conservatives more and more simply promoting a jungle ethic. I've read various proposals and it appears to me they don't have a clue, nor do they want to. Serious emergency? Take two tort reforms and call me next year.

So I'm just asking: Do you see health care as NOT a national emergency but just an exaggeration, as you see climate change? Or if it is, what in your view would make a positive change?

Sincerely--
Conrad Bishop

[ubaru]

Dear Ubaru--

Since you see the Affordable Healthcare act as an abomination, what are your own ideas about what should be done (and if not by the gov't then by whom?) to deal with the state of health care in this country?

Could you please point out where I said this? I see Ron Paul said it, but why are you posing the question to me? Are you assuming I'm his representative? I'm not. I may agree or disagree with his weekly updates and I post them for others to read his views.

I'm not sure how to deal with the healthcare situation. I haven't studied it enough to say. But I do know that mandatory forced health care to benefit insurance companies and make my private health records government property is government corporate fascist style, and is not the way we do things in America.

If we got malpractice lawsuit abuse out of the way, doctors could practice for a lot less money. And if we got the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer industry out of medicine, there'd be a lot more health. So I'd do reform in these areas. I'd rather see a private doctor any day than a state doctor. The private doctor and I can have a relationship based on true choices. The state doctor is so controlled I will never be given proper care. Other than that, I haven't studied the problem enough to say more.

Ron Paul would say the free market is ALWAYS more efficient and effective at conducting business than the state. If you like you can search Ron Paul + Healthcare and see what his ideas are about that.

Libertarians have hearts, Conrad. They care. They are not Republican conservatives. There's a big difference. If you want to find out more about that go to www.humblelibertarian.com where the motto is 'Peace, Love, Liberty.' Constitutionalists are not necessarily conservatives either. So don't generalize.

Yes I see health care as an emergency, but not one that the government should take care of. I'd like to see the experts in nutrition and medical disciplines educate and persuade people to make healthier lifestyle choices. And many other private innovations like the low cost community holistic health clinic that got set up in Fairfax in 2008, where one can get treated in many instances for $20, and is flourishing. I see the government screwing up everything it touches. For example, the government recommended food pyramid CREATES illness. Notice I say we ought to educate and persuade, rather than force and make mandatory. This is the difference between a democracy and a totalitarian state.

I'd like to see you name anything the government has done for the people that is functional and efficient and not currently falling apart. Do you really think we should have mandatory forced health care?

[rossmen]

conrad you asked me this question and i wrote an answer not on your list. are you really interested in your question or just an advocate for liberal socialist solutions to a basic human need?

Dear Ubaru--

Since you see the Affordable Healthcare act as an abomination, what are your own ideas about what should be done (and if not by the gov't then by whom?) to deal with the state of health care in this country?

Before becoming eligible for Medicare, we were paying more for health insurance than for our mortgage, and because of a diagnosed condition that's never manifested any symptoms or costs, I could find only one carrier. Presently, if we weren't on Medicare, we'd be in serious financial straits. Millions have no coverage whatever or avoid any care unless their legs are rotting off. I'm sure you know the statistics.

The solutions I've seen, other than single-payer (which obviously I'd support and you would not), are (a) get rich; (b) live an incredibly healthy lifestyle far distant from toxic waste sites, have no accidents or genetic defects or communicable diseases; (c) never go to Western doctors; or (d) pray. Somehow I find these inadequate.

So do you have better ideas? From your quoted material I get the sense that since there's no Constitutional license (other than the Preamble) for the Gov't to promote the general welfare, we should just let it all go to hell except in those areas where a profit can be made.

Pardon if I sound sardonic, but I see the conservatives more and more simply promoting a jungle ethic. I've read various proposals and it appears to me they don't have a clue, nor do they want to. Serious emergency? Take two tort reforms and call me next year.

So I'm just asking: Do you see health care as NOT a national emergency but just an exaggeration, as you see climate change? Or if it is, what in your view would make a positive change?

Sincerely--
Conrad Bishop

[theindependenteye]

>>>conrad you asked me this question and i wrote an answer not on your list. are you really interested in your question or just an advocate for liberal socialist solutions to a basic human need?

Dear Rossman--

I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you posted your answer. I haven't seen it in my private email and I haven't seen it on Wacco. Please clarify.

To answer your other questions: Yes, I'm an advocate for liberal socialist solutions to basic human needs. And yes, I'm interested in other possible answers to the question. To date I haven't heard any. But please do take my question seriously, even if it involves just giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Cheers—
Conrad

[theindependenteye]

Dear Ubaru--

Thanks for your reply.

>>>Could you please point out where I said this? I see Ron Paul said it, but why are you posing the question to me? Are you assuming I'm his representative? I'm not. I may agree or disagree with his weekly updates and I post them for others to read his views.

It's an important subject, and since you posted his views, I was asking for yours, since he's not subscribed to this list.

>>>If we got malpractice lawsuit abuse out of the way... if we got the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer industry out of medicine... healthier lifestyle choices... low cost community holistic health clinic...

Ok, so you answered my question. Tort reform, no doctors, no drugs, volunteer clinics, and you're on your own. That pretty much tracks with what I've read about both the Republican and the Libertarian offerings in relation to the problem.

>>>I'd rather see a private doctor any day than a state doctor.

Just one correction: Nothing in the current health care law or single-payer solutions has anything to do with "state doctors." That's Great Britain.

>>>Ron Paul would say the free market is ALWAYS more efficient and effective at conducting business than the state. If you like you can search Ron Paul + Healthcare and see what his ideas are about that.

Yes, I have. It's very consistent ideology. Reminds me of Aristotle: impeccable reasoning, with very limited reference to the real world. "Free market," in my view, is as mythical a creature as the "humours" theory.

>>>Libertarians have hearts, Conrad. They care. ... Constitutionalists are not necessarily conservatives either. So don't generalize.

I was speaking in reference to this particular issue. If I told you of my friend who died of uterine cancer in her 40's -- which wasn't discovered till it was Stage 4 because they didn't have insurance so didn't go for checkups -- I sincerely believe that, yes, you would care. But in practical terms, it sounds as if all you'd do would be to tell her to live a healthier lifestyle and see a shaman. And incidentally, you'll be paying higher insurance premiums yourself if you go to the hospital that gave her emergency care when it was already too late.

>>>I'd like to see you name anything the government has done for the people that is functional and efficient and not currently falling apart.

I think over the years I've written as much that's critical of the government as Ron Paul's ghostwriters have, so I'm not one to make a great case for the government on any level. All the achievements that I might name — roads and bridges, education, food inspection, regulatory agencies, the armed forces, workplace safety, policing, the postal service, the space program, the park service, basic scientific research — are indeed falling apart ... because they're underfunded or misused or caving under overwhelming lobbying pressure from the so-called free market. The idea that privatization could do it better is just abstract theory without evidence (as is, I must admit, the idea of a truly socialist state).

>>>Do you really think we should have mandatory forced health care?

Nope, I think everyone should be free to die if they want to, without forced medical intervention. But I do believe health care, including preventive services, should be accessible to everyone without absolutely destroying them financially, and that only the government is going to make that possible. Invoking the specter of Big Brother on this issue is effective politics, I guess, but in my opinion it's as silly as it is shameful.

Anyway, thanks for answering my question.

Best wishes--
Conrad

[podfish]

why are you posing the question to me? ...
I'm not sure how to deal with the healthcare situation... But I do know that mandatory forced health care to benefit insurance companies and make my private health records government property is government corporate fascist style, and is not the way we do things in America.

Conrad replied in depth, but to add a bit:
This is the biggest problem with the "I'm against it!" point of view. It's based on wishful thinking that somehow, there's an ideal solution but somehow it's being ignored - often because of selfish interests arrayed against it.

When you have non black&white situations, where we're going to have to accept a pragmatic solution, the ideology falls apart. Some call it hypocrisy: a cliche'd example is when a politician suddenly supports gay rights when he finds out he has a gay child. But it's not - it's unwillingness to follow things to their logical conclusions.
Conrad's exactly right, and you've totally dodged the question. What can you possibly imagine will be done about indigents who need health care? Especially those who "don't deserve" care because they've lived what some will judge as irresponsible lives? Are you really willing to follow through to the Darwinian conclusion? Or are you instead going to insist on ignoring that consequence until and unless accident forces you to deal with it on a personal level?
That's what we see: many people get "life conversion" experiences when something actually touches someone they love. It's usually pitched as a heart-warming story, but it really should instead be seen as a precautionary tale - people will defer hard choices if they possibly can.

[rossmen]

competition works very well for medical procedures not covered by government or private insurance. even advanced tech stuff using expensive equipment. the cost of lazer eye surgery has gone down 10 fold and quality is up. you go in, get an exam, and they tell you how much. you can even shop around comparing prices and outcomes.

i have catastrophic coverage so pay for all medical out of pocket. the insurance clerks up front look at me blankly when i ask how much? what if the government covered everything over 10k? then everyone would be asking how much. we would be taking better care of ourselves to. true preventative care happens by personal lifestyle choices.

when most health care receivers are empowered spenders health providers will be focused on value and service. health programs to help the poor would also cost society less because the whole system will be more efficient and affordable.

private health insurance is sold as competition by insurance companies. your experience demonstrates how this is not true. government provided health care is less expensive. by all working together in a responsive system where we are empowered and rewarded for good health choices we can do even better.


theindependenteye wrote:
The most common argument against a government-operated single-payer medical system is that our health care will be controlled by "faceless bureaucrats." I've never understood this idea.

In the countries whose health care systems result in better health statistics for lower costs than ours, health care is in the hands of doctors, whose compensation is indeed controlled by faceless bureaucrats.

In the US, health care is in the hands of doctors, whose compensation is also controlled by faceless bureaucrats -- in the employ of insurance companies whose mandated function is to make as big a profit as possible. The profit motive makes them less faceless? Less bureaucratic? More humane?

Ah, but COMPETITION will induce them to be less faceless? Before becoming eligible for Medicare, I was paying much more for health insurance than for my mortgage, with a sizeable co-pay for every medical visit. Somehow the myth of the benevolent function of competition didn't apply to me. But then I guess nobody has a right to exist just because they want to.

Arguments about tort reform or the drain on our system from undocumented aliens (or fully-documented citizens) may be justified, but in the whole picture that's just diddling around the edge of the problem. Talk to someone who can't afford health insurance or is being bled dry by the insurance companies or has had to go to the mat to get approval for a treatment or can't hire employees because they can't afford even group premiums, and then tell me about freedom from faceless bureaucrats.

Cheers--
Conrad

>>>conrad you asked me this question and i wrote an answer not on your list. are you really interested in your question or just an advocate for liberal socialist solutions to a basic human need?

Dear Rossman--

I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you posted your answer. I haven't seen it in my private email and I haven't seen it on Wacco. Please clarify.

To answer your other questions: Yes, I'm an advocate for liberal socialist solutions to basic human needs. And yes, I'm interested in other possible answers to the question. To date I haven't heard any. But please do take my question seriously, even if it involves just giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Cheers—
Conrad

[rossmen]

the statistics of what different nations spend on healthcare per capita and health statistics are clear. and the details are interesting too. for example brits spend half as much as us and are in better health. their better health probably has most to do with walking more, ie less car centric society. they eat a similar diet.

i believe that government provided single payer catastrophic care is the way to go. here is what convinced me;
www.theatlantic.com/david-goldhill/

>>>conrad you asked me this question and i wrote an answer not on your list. are you really interested in your question or just an advocate for liberal socialist solutions to a basic human need?

Dear Rossman--

I'm sorry, but I don't understand where you posted your answer. I haven't seen it in my private email and I haven't seen it on Wacco. Please clarify.

To answer your other questions: Yes, I'm an advocate for liberal socialist solutions to basic human needs. And yes, I'm interested in other possible answers to the question. To date I haven't heard any. But please do take my question seriously, even if it involves just giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Cheers—
Conrad