Give Up Now
In Tuesday’s New York Times editorial entitled “Don’t Give Up Now,” the cry for Democrats to fight on in the great Healthcare War of 2010 and ignore public sentiment is an overwhelming petition to pull out a dry wooden match, drag its phosphorous laden tip across the matchbox; and set the Constitution on fire!
The Times seems to have the ability to have read the minds of the Massachusetts voter when it states the outcome of the special election for the Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate seat was based solely on how each candidate appealed to the voter.
How naïve and dismissive!
The Times ignores the timing of Scott Brown’s rise and Martha Coakley’s fall in polls as nothing but a popularity contest based on their distinct personality differences.
Granted there were many factors, but Mr. Brown’s campaign didn’t gain the traction it needed to win until the Senate rammed through their version of healthcare legislation Christmas Eve and the Obama Administration turned over the thwarted Christmas day suicide bomber to the protection of the U.S. Attorney General’s office, with the full rights of an American citizen.
The American people don’t want anything close to the healthcare plans passed in either legislative chamber. The opinion polls back this up.
Despite the political avalanche that has swallowed the Democratic party in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts, The Times is still calling for the House of Representatives to accept the Senate version as a palatable alternative and that can and should be modified once passed.
The election of Mr. Brown was indeed a referendum on the Obama Administration. The electorate of Massachusetts took their responsibility seriously and realized that the current makeup of the executive and legislative branches was unchecked power. They were aware of the losses of freedom that a plan either run by – or strictly regulated by – the federal government would have had on their lives.
Contrary to what The New York Times editorial board, the president, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., NV) say, the fact remains that either version of these healthcare bills would be a severe setback for the People’s law – The Constitution. The loss of individual freedoms would be staggering.
Nowhere….nowhere does the Constitution, or any other founding document, provide for this type of expenditure. Nor is there, or has there ever been, any legal justification for this in our nation’s history. You cannot force people to purchase insurance.
Whether or not this or any other proposed entitlement plan makes economic sense (this one does not) does not allow Congress to ignore the law.
State Constitutions on the other hand typically have broad interpretations of expenditures and laws concerning insurance. A number of states have a government-run healthcare system and they are monitored by the individual state regulatory agencies.
On the other hand, the United States Constitution is very specific; it leaves all powers not clearly defined as powers reserved to the states.
Progressives, statists and their cheerleaders have had differing levels of success over the past century instituting government control over U.S. citizens, but no one should doubt that any attempt at forcing Americans into a government-based healthcare system will fail. It will fail not only constitutionally but at the ballot box as well.