I've been (mostly) keeping my mouth shut about this whole health care debacle, but I thought it was time I chime in with my 98 cents. Before I begin, let's get one thing straight, here. I'm not a health care reform opponent. I'm all for health care reform. Sadly, what was passed within the last 24 hours is
NOT what my Tenth Amendment tells me being an American means. I'll start with the reasons why I support health care reform (to prove to you nay-saying assholes I'm not an Armageddon fearing right winger).
A few positives:Cancer patients and people with other chronic conditions will be covered. These people will no longer be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I think it's immoral to not allow these people the care they need because they can't afford it. Shame on the insurance companies that have been getting away with it for so long. Try to think about if a loved one had cancer that they could fight, but wasn't allowed to fight it because it wasn't affordable. Bullshit.
Poor people will have better coverage. I'll come back to this a bit later, but for now I'll leave it as I'm supportive of people in a lower income bracket being able to receive good, affordable health care. Being able to treat your sick children, and even yourself if you've come down with the flu and are in need of medication, is something I think should be standard.
Senior citizens will be able to afford more without slipping into the poverty line. Too often, medical bills, high medication costs, and depleted social security incomes weigh into how our grandparents (and parents, soon enough) will be living. I'm glad a new social security reform was put into action with this bill.
A few negatives:First and foremost, this new bill will allow the practices of lazy people (with whom I speak every day) to continue. There was already a system in place for those below the poverty line who needed health care – Medicaid. I simply do not understand why reform to systems we already have in place was not considered longer. Maybe our House leaders were up late this weekend watching old episodes of Quick Draw McGraw.
"This is what change looks like." Change? This adds new powers to the IRS! The benefits of the bill don't kick in until four years from now, but, the taxes start right away. If "millions" (to quote Harry Reid) are losing their insurance every day, then, why doesn't this bill's benefits start immediately after the President's signature? We only can see history repeating itself. This bill is not about the American people, but more Federal power to control over the states and moving further away from the Constitution. Rather, if we give more choice through free markets, prudent regulation, deregulation across state lines, tort reform, individual health savings accounts, and tax breaks, it will lower the costs. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a social safety net, but not to this magnitude.
What about us? The baby boomers are going to basically deplete our social security by the time we get to that stage. I would like to hope that other generations (such as ours) are taken into consideration, as well. Social Security definitely needs to be fixed to be sure it's there for us and our children, too. I try to think of all the good it's already done and of all the Americans who haven't slipped into poverty as they aged, which used to be a pretty common thing. The money has to come from somewhere, people.
Let me now direct your attention to our lovely Constitution and Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Confused? Let me break it down a bit for you. Nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents. At the time the states adopted the Tenth Amendment, two primary conceptions of government were under consideration. Many federalists supported a centralized national authority, with power concentrated in a single entity. This type of government was exemplified by the English constitutional system, which vested absolute authority in the monarchy during the seventeenth century and in Parliament during the eighteenth century. I thought absolute power was something we opposed and fought about with the dirty Brits? Bullshit!
I realize that during the Great Depression, FDR (by the way, I'm in
NO WAY drawing a comparison between Obama and FDR. The only reason I bring this up is in reference to the Tenth Amendment. FDR was what this country needs right now, not an inexperienced talk show host) drew on the Tenth Amendment in order to pass the New Deal, which helped lead our country out of its misery. But, let's be honest. We're hurting. We have been for a few years. But, we're not in a Great Depression. Wild measures such as this new bill being passed are not the best solution for our hurting country/economy/people. If it's true that law makers think we're hurting so bad that they need to step in and make something happen, fine (as with the New Deal example). But, why pass something that doesn't take effect for another 4 years (yet we still have to pay for it immediately)? I guess "required" and "penalty" are words I forgot were synonymous with freedom. As for me, I'm back to work to support my new 32 million dependents (bullshit!).
"The substitution of economic planning for the market economy removes all freedom and leaves to the individual merely the right to obey." - Ludwig von Mises