The Price of Slavery
The following is an email sent in response to an email concerning healthcare to Rep. David Price. Mr. Price obviously has no regard for our Constitution and feels that it is a living document. Instead of breathing life into this document, he is suffocating the very essence of our freedom. Even though I personally refuted his “validation” of the Constitutionality of health care legislation to him citing James Madison’s Federalist Paper 41, he continues to impose his will on the people by distorting our highest laws.
February 19, 2010
Dear Mr. Stoddard:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the constitutionality of health insurance reform legislation. I appreciate knowing of your concerns.
As you know, Congress is currently working on legislation to reform the health insurance industry. The opponents of reform have sought to kill the legislation by claiming, among other things, that it is unconstitutional. They base this claim on the fact that the Constitution does not expressly give Congress the authority to regulate health insurance or health care; therefore, they conclude, any effort to do so must be unconstitutional. That is simply not the case.
Since the health insurance and health care systems did not exist at the time the Constitution was written, their absence from the document cannot be viewed as a deliberate omission. The Founding Fathers wisely recognized that they could not predict the future, and they sought to write a governing document for our nation that could withstand the test of time. One such example of their foresight is reflected in Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . [the] Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States.” The Supreme Court has interpreted these powers to include efforts to “insure domestic Tranquility . . . [and] promote the general Welfare,” which are referenced in the Preamble, and has found federal health care initiatives to be consistent with this authority.
Opponents of reform also have questioned the bill’s requirement that individuals take responsibility for their health care by maintaining health insurance, charging that it violates the principle of individual liberty. I believe it does just the opposite. Health insurance is much like automobile insurance. We need it because, when unforeseen things happen, it is unfair to force someone else to pick up the tab. Under the current health care system, hospitals are providing billions of dollars annually in care to the uninsured, and everyone who has insurance is paying higher premiums as a result. In my view, that constitutes a significant infringement on the individual liberty of the insured, which the bill would correct.
Note that whether to obtain insurance would still be a matter of choice. One choosing not to over himself would simply pay an excise tax to cover the costs to the insured populations should he have to utilize the system.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Again, thank you for contacting me, and please continue to keep me informed of your views on issues before the Congress.
Sincerely,
DAVID PRICE
Member of Congress
Cost shift from Medicare and Medicaid cost us significantly more than people who don't pay their bills – I saw an article today that this adds 30% to costs in FL. This bill does not address that – in fact, it cuts $500 B from the Medicare budget, threatening to make the problem even worse assuming that our senior citizens will be able to get the care they need. Out of those that don't pay their bills, many are here illegally. This bill does not address that either as illegals don't pay taxes and won't be paying the excise tax. Therefore they will still get treated for free in the ER and will have no need for insurance.
Furthermore, you do not have to have auto insurance. You can choose to not have a car, and many states allow drivers to post bonds in lieu of insurance. If we take his auto insurance analogy a bit further, we are not required to carry low to no deductible plans. The insurance company also doesn't pay for routine maintenance. People who tend to crash a lot get their policies cancelled and are put into high risk pools. People who are more prone to accidents – ie, new drivers – pay significantly higher premiums, as do people who rack up a lot of points on their license. Imagine if we had to buy our gas through an insurance company – people who don't drive very far would be subsidizing people who do. Prius owners would be subsidizing SUV drivers. And lastly – auto insurance companies are not required to cover cars that have already been wrecked.
Price is making 2 inaccurate assumptions 1) that all uninsured people don't pay their bills 2) paying directly for services is a bad thing. Many customers pay cash – for instance, the people who come here from countries such as Canada that already have a single-payer system. Customers that have switched their coverage to consumer driven plans where they pay their bills directly are saving themselves and their employers money and their premiums have not seen the dramatic increases that traditional plans have had. So, it seems that less insurance is a actually a good thing. BTW – consumer driven plans and HSA's were created when Bush was in the White House and the Repubs had control of Congress. So that, Obama, is what the repubs were doing over the past 10 yrs – conducting an incremental experiment that appears to be working without taking over 1/6 of the nations economy.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?
Madison clearly states that the general welfare only applies to what is defined in Artilce I, Section 8
can you summarize what Madison said in Federalist paper 41?
He also needs to read the bills that Congress is not even writing.
He needs to read the 10th amendment and the 9th amendment.
David Price's defense for health care legislation in this letter is the general welfare clause of the Constitution. As I pointed out to him previously in a public meeting, James Madison clarified the meaning of the general welfare clause in Federalist Paper 41. Either Mr. Price did not bother to read this clarification when pointed out to him or he does not care about whether the legislation is based on the Constitution. I will give him some credit. When I asked this question of him originally, he stated that the commerce clause and the general welfare clause gave him the Constitutional authority to support this legislation. I pointed out the government intervention does not allow the purchase of health care insurance across state lines so the interstate commerce clause does not apply. At least he now has dropped one of his two faulty premises.
This post may be improved by citing points from Mr. Price's email and specifically addressing them. Somebody help me out and point out the major flaws…
David Price is a Moonbat