Mr. Sensitive

March 30, 2012

I Hate Obamacare

Filed under: Uncategorized — lbej @ 13:14

I mean I hate the word ‘Obamacare,’ not the health care reform law.  Can we call the last recession the ‘Bushession?’  If so, I’ll give you Obamacare.  Hopefully the Supreme Court is going to rule the portion of the law requiring individuals to buy insurance unconstitutional, because it is unconstitutional.  That’s not to say it’s a bad idea—I would say that separately—but whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea has nothing to do with whether or not the government has the power to do it.

I’m confounded about two aspects of this whole health care reform mess.  First, why did Obama and the then-Democratic Congress need to make reform of the health care system an omnibus doo-doo bomb in the first place?  How can you tell the voters that the private health insurance industry is rife with awful practices that need to be restricted (dropping coverage when people get sick, denying coverage of pre-existing conditions, etc.) out of one side of your mouth, and out of the other side of your mouth tell those same voters the government will now force them to patronize that very industry?  If there are corrupt practices that harm the public and need to be stopped, in any industry, legislate to stop them—separately.  Then let’s debate this individual mandate—again, separately.  I hate omnibus legislation.

As an aside, if I were going to amend the Constitution, I would make three changes:  ten-year term limits for Supreme Court Justices (the lifetime appointments are insane and unjustified); a single, six-year term for the President (no more Presidents spending their first four years in office running for reelection, something they all do); and no more omnibus legislation and/or line-item veto.

The second thing that confounds me about this week’s Supreme Court review of the health care reform legislation is that the vote isn’t going to be 9-0.  Why should it be 9-0?  Because every one of these votes should be 9-0, since the Constitution says only what it says and nothing it doesn’t say.  If the Constitution doesn’t say the federal government can do something, then it can’t.  I understand that’s a simplistic view, but…is it, really?  We’ve expanded and modified government functions and powers over the centuries by interpreting the Constitution, conservatively or liberally, and thus we’ve systematically undermined the Constitution itself.  IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS.  If we (you know, the people) want it to say something it didn’t say 200 years ago, that’s perfectly understandable.  We don’t want to crap in outhouses anymore, either, so we’ve added indoor plumbing.  So if we want to change the structure or function of government because our needs as a society have changed, we can do that BY AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.  Instead, we let politicians appoint Justices for (insane) lifetime terms and those Justices interpret the Constitution according to their own personal legal lights.  If we’re going to talk about Constitutional practices that go against the framers’ intentions, can we start with that?  If we want universal health care, we’ve got to amend the Constitution to get it.  It’s not impossible…unless the people don’t want it to happen, that is.  Do we want it?  I don’t know; I only know what the Republicans want versus what the Democrats want.  Doesn’t seem right, does it?


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: