published Sunday, May 6th, 2012

Obama's feet of clay

It is not overstating the case to say that it will be cause for a national day of sorrow if the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down ObamaCare as a brazen and unconstitutional overreach by the metastasizing federal government. That is how serious a threat ObamaCare poses to our freedom as a people.

Justice Antonin Scalia was savaged by the left during hearings on ObamaCare when he pondered whether a Congress that can force Americans to buy government-approved medical insurance or be punished also can force us to buy broccoli.

To hear the big-government zealots tell it, it was as if Scalia had uttered an idea that no one would ever imagine to be permissible.

The trouble is, other people involved in the case also have suggested that a broccoli mandate might be allowed under our Constitution -- and they are hardly conservatives.

Consider a couple of inconvenient points made by Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

"During oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the constitutionality of Obamacare's health-insurance mandate," he writes, "the Obama administration's lawyer, Beth Brinkmann, was asked whether a federal law requiring all Americans to eat broccoli would be constitutional.

"'It depends,' she replied. But she could certainly envision cases where it would be."

Tanner adds: "That makes [Brinkmann] only slightly less certain than Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who was asked the same question during her confirmation hearings. Kagan, who will help decide the fate of Obamacare's mandate, had no doubts that a broccoli mandate would be constitutional."

So if the left thinks the notion that such a mandate could make its way into U.S. law is nonsense, it might want to rein in its own prominent legal figures who have, at a minimum, hinted that there is no constitutional principle to forbid such an encroachment on individual liberty.

And that brings us back to the painful controversy over ObamaCare's rule that religiously affiliated schools, charities and such must pay for employees' birth control coverage even if such coverage is a direct violation of the teachings of the faith to which the organizations are connected.

It is utterly irrelevant whether you happen to think Catholic views on contraception are correct. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty is not up for a vote by Congress. Moreover, views and policies that win popularity contests do not generally require a lot of constitutional protection. It is as much for views on which there is sharp debate as for broadly accepted opinions that the protection of the First Amendment exists.

And yet as things stand now, ObamaCare represents a mortal threat to the invaluable and wide-ranging charitable work that Catholic institutions perform throughout the United States. If upheld, it will force them either to deny bedrock tenets of their faith or to shut down and lay off the very employees whose medical coverage is at issue in the first place.

But enough about ObamaCare's job-killing properties and the debate over birth control. Important as those issues are, they miss another key point.

The real problem is that the federal government is forcing a great many employers of all stripes to provide medical coverage or be fined. Beginning in 2014, companies that have more than 50 full-time employees must begin providing health insurance, or else they will be penalized annually to the tune of $2,000 per full-time worker, excluding their first 30 workers.

It would be helpful if, for a change, supporters of ObamaCare would cite not just their personal, ill-defined notions of "fairness" but the so-far-undiscovered regions of the Constitution that grant Congress the right to dictate the benefits that employers must provide to employees. Under the 10th Amendment's clear restraints on federal power, that is not a matter over which Congress has authority. Rather, it is something to be worked out in our free market by mutual agreement between a company and its employees -- with workers retaining the right not to work for an employer who they believe offers inadequate benefits.

It is proper for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to be outraged by ObamaCare's all-out assault on Catholic schools' and charities' right not to violate their teachings and their conscience.

But it is equally proper for all Americans to challenge the unbounded growth of the size and power of the federal government. If ObamaCare is not struck down, it is almost impossible to imagine that any meaningful limits will remain on Washington's role in all our lives.

As U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., casually stated in a moment of candor in response to a person who questioned whether health care is a "right": "I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. ... The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country."

Constitutionally speaking, he is dead wrong. But he merely put into words what too many members of Congress, as well as the president, plainly believe: that Washington is entitled to do what it pleases.

24
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Actually the problem with Scalia's remark is that it was taken right out of the anti-Obama care playbook as presented by the media pundits.

I can understand a media talking head making such a pointless remark that serves simply to reduce a serious discussion to partisan rhetoric, or this equally biased editorial page, but I think holding a Supreme Court justice to a higher standard is entirely appropriate.

At the least, it certainly gives an impression of impropriety.

May 6, 2012 at 1:07 a.m.
nucanuck said...

With or without Obamacare, America has the most expensive health care and the shortest life expectantcy in the developed world. That combination of highest cost and worst performance should be enough to unite us to fight for a better way.

Employer based health care automatically shuts the door to reasonable access for more than 1/3 of our population while covering the rest unevenly. Businesses are hiring more and more sub-contractors and part-time workers to avoid paying for health care. Health care, as presently constituted, is slowly destroying our business workplace structure.

Why oh why is there such hostility to a single payer system that would be available to all and cost the country less in total health care outlay?

May 6, 2012 at 1:26 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Excellent points, nucanuck. The argument as to whether the mandate is constitutional or not is absurd. We shouldn't be having that argument in the first place. The fact that we even regard health insurance as a commodity that is purchased on the open market or that we have come to expect our employers to provide it for us is absolutely preposterous. The other developed nations look at us and laugh or scratch their heads in disbelief that a supposedly "advanced" and "civilized" nation such as ours does not look out for the health and welfare of its citizens as a basic function of government. The healthier a nation is as a whole, the stronger and more prosperous that nation is.

It would be much more cost effective to have a single payer system. Leaving it in the hands of private enterprise, as we do, is the most imbalanced, costly, and inefficient means of health coverage we could possibly have. I don't see it changing for the better any time soon, though - way too many government hating, selfish, free-market idolizing right wing extremists with a stranglehold on our government to allow anything progressive and forward thinking to take place.

May 6, 2012 at 2:39 a.m.
conservative said...

What a great article! This should be a classic.

The words of Obamination's lawyer Beth Brinkmann during oral arguments on Obaminationcare and Justice Elana Kagan stating their belief that the Federal government can mandate that every American be made to buy broccoli is shocking.

Yes, I know they are Lieberals and therefore Socialists ( all Lieberals are Socialists ), but the reach and dictatorial powers these two ( there are many others but few so bold as these two ) would confer on our Federal government is astonishing and Hitlerite in it's scope. This is pure evil!!!

May 6, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
nucanuck said...

con-man,

Just so you wll know, Obamacare is almost exactly what the GOP proposed in answer to Hillary Clinton's health care plan in the early '80s. They loved it then...hate it now. What changed?

Your second paragraph above tears into "Socialists...Lieberals...Hitlerite scope..." perjorative, destructive language without an ounce of constructive commentary. Instead of damning indefineable boogymen, would you consider offering reasons, real reasons for your different opinion. Explain your view of a better way to deal with marijuana. Do it in a civil way. Labels don't make a point, they belittle the user.

May 6, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
joneses said...

Does this thouth process not scare you people?

"As U.S. Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., casually stated in a moment of candor in response to a person who questioned whether health care is a "right": "I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. ... The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country."

Constitutionally speaking, he is dead wrong. But he merely put into words what too many members of Congress, as well as the president, plainly believe: that Washington is entitled to do what it pleases."

nucanuck,

You are a liar saying that obastardcare was modeled after what Republicans offered for a solution health care. That is what you actually want people to believe. it is een worst than the lie you liberals are spreading saying obastard is a conservative. By being this desperate to spread lies you are admitting obastard is a complete failure.

May 6, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
nucanuck said...

joneses,

I believe my statement to be true and to be called a liar by a fool is a badge I will wear proudly.

May 6, 2012 at 1:22 p.m.
conservative said...

CON-nuck, CON-nuck, where do I begin, how simple do I have to get?

Labels are important, especially when you you need to make a point quickly. We label people as thieves when they steal, murderers when they kill and liars when they lie.

Lieberals are invariably liars, hypocrites and Socialists. Adding that "e" puts the focus on one of their traits. Many may not be the author of the particular lie they are pushing at the time but they are passing the lie nonetheless. One may sincerely believe that 2+2 is 5 but that is a lie. Lieberalism is a lie!

You play the hypocrite concerning pejoratives when you address me as con-man and use the word conservative in a contemptuous manner. Also, you are a Socialist but will not identify yourself as such.

Hitler had unlimited dictatorial powers. Our Constitution was written limiting the powers of our Federal government. The article above, which I amplified on, pointed out that the Obamination lawyer Beth Brinkman and Justice Elana Kagan believe our Federal government should have dictatorial powers so great that it can make every citizen buy broccoli and if they can make us buy broccoli, they can make us buy or do anything.

Is this evil or not. Chose only one, YES or NO

May 6, 2012 at 2 p.m.
joneses said...

nucanuck

Then you just go ahead and wear your lying fool badge proudly. That is the problem with you lying, foolish liberals, you are proud of being fools. LOL!

May 6, 2012 at 2:28 p.m.
joneses said...

It’s hard to think of a president that has been more of an Epic Failure than President Obastard. Even Carter is glad this guy came along, so at least he knows he is no longer the worst president ever. Here is just a short list of Obastard’s Failures:

Hawaii is in Asia Passing on the keystone pipeline. Touts a Green Energy Company as exemplary that fails a year later. Using the Gulf Oil Spill to promote Green Energy – instead of cleaning it up. Thinking the Tea Party is a passing fad – or that they are racists. Pulling out of Iraq with no clear victory over insurgent forces. Trying to re-write history through speeches – with inaccurate information (i.e. Statue of Liberty) Getting a Nobel Prize for being the most ineffective President in the history of the United States, though some say it was for his pigment. Putting all legislation on the Internet for five days before it comes to a vote. Returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits. Giving a collection of DVDs to the British PM. Denying the notion of American Exceptionalism. Promising to close Gitmo — failing to do so. Securing the Olympics for Chicago in 2016. Naming numerous Communists/Socialists/Progressives to his various Czar positions and then watching them scurry for cover when Beck begins to call them out, forcing them to resign. Government races for NJ, VA and the Senate Seat in Mass. The midterm elections, which Obama himself called a shellacking. Prediction that stimulus would ensure that unemployment doesn’t exceed 8%. Bowing to just about everybody. Proposing amnesty for illegal aliens to increase the population of voters for Democrat elections. He said, I have visited 57 states. Now there is just 1 left to visit. Obama to Medvedev…give me space I will have more flexibility after my election.

May 6, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.
joneses said...

Conservative,

It is evil. These liberals will not answer you question asking if giving the government the power to dictate anything they want on America's population. They know if they were to be honest about their complete agenda of total government control of every aspect of America they would not get any support from the ignorant fools that follow them and believe all their lies. These fools like nucanuck who wear their fools badge with honor will never admit that obastard is a total failure regardless of the proof. Obastard and these communist, socialist, or whatever they are actually believe that socialism is a better form of government even though all socialist governments have failed. That is how blind and stupid they actually are. Have you ever heard obastard or any of these pathetic liberals define what they want to move the country forward to? You will not because if they did they would proof they are the liars they are. Their whole agenda consist of repeating the same lies over and over and eventually the misinformed ignorant people of this country, and there are many as proven in the last election, will swallow their lies as the truth. Hitler was very successful demonizing certain factions of society and we all know the result of his evil. Notice how liberals demonize people with wealth and Christianity. Notice how obastatrds policies are intended to destroy the middle class. This goes in line with the concept that the two largest obstacles to total communism are a middle class and religion.

May 6, 2012 at 2:53 p.m.
joneses said...

nucanuck or nonuts

Any health care plan from the Republicans did not make it a federal mandate forcing anyone to buy something stupid. Get your facts right moron and stop spreading the liberal talking head lies.

May 6, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
nucanuck said...

"Liebrals are invariably liars, hypocrits, and Socialists."

So con-man, your liberal Jesus was a liar, hypocrit, and a Socialist?

This is not a blue team against the red team world, but rather two sides of the same coin. Good and evil exists on all sides. Political labels are so broad and mis-interpreted as to be meaningless. We have to work on the presumption that we all want a better world and that there is no known set prescription...no one size fits all.

Pure capitalism is as unworkable as pure socialism. We have to find blends of things that we can adapt to each given situation, IMO.

As to your internet handle, you have co-opted a word that, to me, does not fit your persona, only your concept of the meaning of the word. I can't bring myself to address you by a word that mis-represents the person you project to be. I think that I am a fiscal conservative, I doubt that we would agree on that.

As to joneses, he's pretty much an irrelevant hot head...not much hope for such emotional ruminations.

May 6, 2012 at 4:29 p.m.
conservative said...

Oh CON-nuck, your calling Jesus a liberal makes my point about Lieberals being liars. Calling Jesus a liberal is one of the greatest lies of all time. It is blasphemy. Judging from your past comments about Israel, I am sure you are just ignorant of scripture and don't realize how great that lie is. You got that from some GOD hating liberal whom you foolishly trust. It is the blind leading the blind.

Lieberalism is all about change - changing truth for a lie. GOD never changes. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow! Adultery, greed, covetousness, idolatry, murder, theft, lying, fornication, evolution and its twin atheism, to name some sins have always been sin and will continue to be sin as long as man is on earth. It is sin because GOD's word says it is sin.

Lieberals deny that these are sins. They are liars. Most Lieberals deny sin period and deny even the existence of GOD their creator. Jesus said "“For I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished.” (NIV)"

Just shut up don't make it any worse.

May 6, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.
rick1 said...

nucanuck, if this country has the worst performance in health care as you said at 1:26am then why did Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is seeking heart surgery in this country?

Isn't it true the governments of British Columbia and Quebec send patients to the United States for coronary artery surgery and cancer treatment?

Is this what we have to look forward to with single payer health insurance.

From a study from Health Affairs. The United States spends more on cancer care than European countries, but a new study published in Health Affairs suggests that investment also generates a greater "value" for US patients, who typically live nearly two years longer than their European counterparts.

This from the LA Times When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor." So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.

"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."

Nucanuck, if the your government run health care is so good why is the government going to allow Canadians to purchase private insurance?

Leave my healh insurance alone.

May 6, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Joneses...The mandate was originally the response of conservatives to counter the proposals of progressives to establish a single-payer system. Mark Pauly was the CONSERVATIVE economist who was credited with the idea. He said, "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.'"

His idea for a mandate was championed by the Heritage Foundation, Nixon pushed it in the 1970s, and George H.W. Bush favored it in the 1980s. For years, it was touted by the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett, Tommy Thompson, Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Judd Gregg, and many other notable GOPers.

They are all on record, joneses, as having been FOR the mandate (before they were against it) as a way of countering a single payer system. The evidence of Republicans who formerly pushed the idea is abundant and easily obtainable. You can google Mark Pauly and find any number of sources that quote him directly as setting forth the concept and see where all the Republicans mentioned, and more, praised it. But I don't know why I or anyone else should bother presenting you with facts when you only call real facts "lies" and you make up your own imaginary ones to support your flimsy untenable arguments.

Somehow it was a great idea when the Republicans were FOR it but now that Obama is pushing it, they're calling it "unconstitutional." Effin' hypocrites.

May 6, 2012 at 6:20 p.m.
rick1 said...

conservative, here is an excellent article on Canada's health care, that nucanuck either refuses to mention or is not aware of. nucanuck would you like to comment on this report since you live in Canada?

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=18136

May 6, 2012 at 6:44 p.m.
conservative said...

rick 1...... Thanks

FYI from your same website: The Fraser Institute: Canadian Health Care Failing Patients and Taxpayers; New Book Explains What's Wrong, Who Gets Hurt, and Why Nothing Changes

-Book-Explains-Whats-1056http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Fraser-Institute-Canadian-Health-Care-Failing-Patients-Taxpayers-New001.htm

Also from other sites : "Father" of Canadian Health Care Admits its a Failure"

http://redclaycitizen.typepad.com/redclay/2008/06/father-of-canad.html

CANADIAN HEALTH CARE: ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER FAILURE"

http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/06/canadian-health-care-another-day-another-failure/

There are scores like these and easy to find, just type something like " failures of candian health care" in search block. Lieberals could do this but they are Socialists and would rather stick their heads in the sand or lie about Socialized medicine. My favorites are those articles from Lieberal Canadian newspapers.

May 6, 2012 at 7:22 p.m.
nucanuck said...

American life expectancy is LOWER than all other developed nations after spending more on health care. When that changes we can talk.

May 6, 2012 at 7:59 p.m.
rick1 said...

nucanuck, In this country we have a higher rate of traffic fatalities, homicides, obesity, and a very diverse population. .

Here are some statistics: The homicide rate in the U.S. was 5.9 per 100,000 people in 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. In contrast, it was 1.99 per 100,000 in Canada, 1.66 in France, .98 in Germany, and 1.63 in England and Wales (approximately 1.71 including Scotland.(1)

In the U.S., in 2006 there were 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people from auto accidents.(2) Canada had 9.25 fatalities(2), France 7.4(3), Germany 6.19(4), and 5.39 in Great Britain (U.K. excluding North Ireland)(5). In general, injuries of all kinds accounted for 47 deaths per 100,000 in the U.S. in 2002 but 26 in the U.K., 29 in Germany and 34 in Canada. Only France, at 48 per 100,000 was equivalent.(6)

While Americans are not the most likely to be overweight, they are more likely to be obese than people in other nations. While critics of the U.S. system often try to drag the issues of obesity into the realm of health care failures, it is the result of complex factors related to culture and economics as much as to health.

With diversity comes not only genetic differences but also cultural and lifestyle ones that can affect health and life expectancy. African-Americans in particular have low life expectancies, well below those of other ethnic groups. Life expectancy can often be correlated to country of origin, with those from nations with high expectancies showing equivalent, or even greater, life expectancies.

While 2008 data shows that life expectancy at birth is higher in the Netherlands than in the U.S., for both men and women (76.66 vs. 75.29 and 81.6 vs. 81.13) this advantage reverses when you look at those who have reached 65.(7) In 2007, the rate of traffic fatalities was 4.84 per 100,000(8) and the homicide rate in Holland is 1.27 per 100,000 population, less than a quarter the rate for the U.S.(9) Injuries also claim fewer lives in the Netherlands than in other countries, only 23 per 100,000 people in the 2002.(10)

The life expectancy at birth in Switzerland is 80.74 (77.91 for men, 83.71 for women) and those who make it to 65 can expect to live to 81.9 for men and 86 for women.(11) But Switzerland has a number of advantages that influence these statistics. It is a small country with a quite homogenous population, low infant mortality due to its restrictions in counting premature babies, and relatively low rates of automobile accidents and homicides. In 2007, Switzerland had a vehicle accident fatality rate of 5.06 per 100,000(12) and the homicide rate in Switzerland was 2.95 per 100,000 people in 2004.(13) As for injuries, in 2002, 32 per 100,000 deaths were from this cause, versus 47 per 100,000 in the U.S.(14)

Please check the listed link for sources that were used for this article.

http://biggovhealth.org/resource/myths-facts/life-expectancy/

Can we talk now?

May 6, 2012 at 8:51 p.m.
conservative said...

rick 1....

You beat me to it. Health care and life expectancy are not the same. CON - nuck has been duped again by a Lieberal lie ( I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt ).

one can google "the lie of life expectancy and American health care" and find many articles supporting your comment.

May 6, 2012 at 9:03 p.m.
rick1 said...

conservative, you are so correct,there is also a big difference in health care and medical care, which our medical care is the best in the world. It amazes me,when people complain about the cost of health insurance and medical care when we have the best medical care in the world with the latest and best technology. Of course these same people think nothing of nor complain about the increase in prices when buying the newest I Phone, or other technology equipment, or buying the newest and most expensive HD TV or a new car every year. But when medical care increases, which will also cause healthcare to increase because companies have a new drug or procedure that will save your life they have a fit. Are they that stupid that they do not understand it costs money to develop these new procedures and drugs? No, I am afraid they believe they are entitled to it. We are doomed, as we have a dumb mass of people who believe everything is a frickin entitlement.

May 6, 2012 at 9:23 p.m.
nucanuck said...

If only I were as smart as you, rick1.

May 6, 2012 at 11:21 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.