“This bill represents a giveaway to the insurance industry — $70 billion a year, and no guarantees of any control over premiums, forcing people to buy private insurance …” — Dennis Kucinich
ERSTWHILE CONGRESSMAN AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DENNIS KUCINICH saw right through the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, when he made the above statement on MSNBC in March 2010. Unfortunately for America, the leaders of the Democratic party were willing to pull a fast one on the electorate by calling the bill a legally authorized government mandate, avoiding the ugly truth: Obamacare is an extensive tax increase as well as government intrusion into our privacy.
Unfortunately, judicial activism, something normally embraced by progressives, reared its ugly head as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, instead of ruling on the law as written, abdicated his sworn duty last summer:
“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and if he had he stopped there and correctly ruled the law to be invalid he would have been enshrined in an imaginary conservative hall of fame. Instead, for extemporaneous reasons, he continued by declaring that the mandate was in fact a tax, and therefore constitutional under the application of Congress’s taxation power.
Regarding the actions of those members of Congress who favored Obamacare, even the watered-down version that emerged, one of two things must be true:
1. They knew what they were doing, in the sense that it was recognized that failure would result if it was termed a “tax,” thus the need for deception, or;
2. They believed the power of Congress to mandate consumer purchases was a wholly appropriate use of the powers granted by the people.
As long as the people of this country are willing to elect representatives to Congress who will pass unwanted legislation through nefarious methods, including under-the-table deals, exemption of key supporters, denial of the equal protection clause and — most importantly — not even reading the bill, there is little we can do about the former.
However, the people — be they conservative, libertarian or that minority of progressive liberals who actually believe in the Constitution — can do something about the latter.
One nascent organization is proposing a constitutional amendment, called the “Mandate Amendment,” which simply reads: “Congress shall make no law mandating the purchase of a product or service from a private company.”
We must recognize that this is exactly what was attempted with the passage of the Affordable Care Act; thus we must conclude that a significant number of those in Congress believe they have the power to order you to buy certain products, if it serves the “greater good.”
“Unless we change it, we can look forward to more of this,” one of the group’s founding members, Paul Roy, said. “Whether it is health care or ‘green’ transportation we might be forced to use, the precedent has been set, unless we change it.”
Another case in point is government-mandated minimum gas mileage requirements for American-built cars, aka CAFE standards, which were initially implemented in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. Detroit responded by producing smaller, lighter cars that few people wanted — and that, sadly, also increased traffic accident fatalities. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Brookings Institution, Harvard School of Public Health, National Academy of Sciences and USA Today, past and current minimum mileage requirements have resulted in thousands of fatalities above those that would have happened without government-mandated standards. Yet the current administration has aggravated the situation by proudly increasing the CAFE standards.
It is not beyond the realm of belief that further mandates would be considered, unless limitations like the Mandate Amendment are placed upon Congress. Consider these possibilities:
• Personal vehicle requirements — The purchase of a second family car might be deemed a “luxury” item or classified as a “commuter car” which the government could mandate to be an electric vehicle or other “eco-friendly” vehicle.
• Solar panel requirements — To reduce dependence on oil, the installation of solar panels from approved government suppliers might be mandated for new homes or made retroactive in the cases of permitted expansions or upgrades.
The group working toward the proposed Mandate Amendment is small but growing, with current representation in 49 states.
To those who argue that such a step is unnecessary, Paul Roy said:
“When the coercive power of government is combined with the money-making power of business, corporatism is the ONLY result. If the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary branches of the U.S. government are not willing to stop the Obamacare assault on the American public, we will do it ourselves.
“The only way to ensure our children will not live in a society in which the government possesses the right to impose a tax in order to force citizens to buy the products and services of corporations, it is necessary to amend the Constitution of the United States.”
Mr. Roy and co-founder John Niewicki have put forward a challenge to the American people. We can decide if we want to be part of a potential solution or continue supporting a government that has grown far beyond what was ever imagined by our founding fathers.
The Mandate Amendment is well worth considering by all fair-minded people opposed to the continued increase in government control over personal decisions.
For more information: www.mandateamendment.com.
Dennis Lund graduated from California State University-Long Beach with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1981 and has resided in Benicia since 1992.
Sharing is caring!
What are your thoughts on medical care cost increases over the last 10 years?
First, Obamacare does nothing to control healthcare costs. In fact the reason that many believe healthcare costs have risen is because of government interference in the free market system. Because of all the rules and regulations doctors order more tests than needed to cover themselves. (Also as a result of malpractice insurance)
Second, as I am quoted in the post above, this has opened the door for more and more mandates. Already this week we hear Joe Biden talking about the use of Executive Orders to solve the “gun problem”. Here on the east coast, we are in the midst of “a terrible flu epidemic”, will we be mandated to all get flu shots? Dennis mentions CAFE, what if the opposite were to happen and the evil Republicans were to gain control again and the oil companies wanted the opposite to happen? What if they should mandate that everyone needs to buy gas powered vehicles?
No matter what your political philosophy, this is a bad precedent which has been set and it must be stopped
Dan,
Both Mr. Roy, and Mr. Livesay make some very good points, with which I concur:
Kaiser Health Care – Offers a reasonable level of care at affordable rates.
Fear of litigation has added costs and resulted in making health care a much less attractive career choice for many qualified people.
”Emergency Room Care” – This is the preferred method of health care for many people, both those who cannot afford health insurance and for those who can but refuse to purchase insurance. This cost is passed on in various ways.
For Profit Health Care – This is an area that many people would want to place restrictions upon, thus imposing their will on those who prefer a higher level of care. Locally think of Mt. Diablo Hospital vs. Kaiser or County Hospitals. Having a two tiered system (which we already do have) could provide both a lower cost plan as well as a higher quality plan, for those who are willing to pay the price.
My thoughts Dan and not DDL because I do not know what his thoughts on this issue would be. The Kaiser Staff model is a very good form of delivering Healthcare. It is very cost effective and big on preventive care. They only issue with that is we must give choice and with choice comes cost. I am not a fan of Obamacare. Some very good parts and some very uncontrolled parts to increase costs. Most folks when given a choice will choose the most important and cost effective plan for themselves. Younger folks tend to take the less expensive because of their health situation. When in a group plan most take the Kaiser type of plan as opposed to Fee for Service plan and others which can be expensive but gives the person a lot of personal freedom in choosing at the same time. Increaing the income level for Medicaid is going to break the Federal Government along with the states. At some time the federal government will go back to a 60/40 pay for the states on Medicaid. That alone will be a disaster. Then put in the business’ that will no longer offer healthcare you now have an even bigger dept load on the Federal Government. Now if the Liberals and their redistribution of wealth plan want to put more of a burden on the top tier of tax payers. Just watch out. Because the real tax money is in the middle income earners. That is who will pay not the top tier. Healthcare is a very difficult issue but at the same time a simple solution. Just remember what I said the Kaiser Staff model will be the future along with some other choices.. It will no doubt control costs in a very good healthcare system. Yes I was in the Healthcare industry and understand it very well. I did not work for Kaiser but know their system very well and it works. The proverty level will be protected as they always have.
Bob L., do you never re-read or revise what you write? You could certainly rewrite your comment clearly.
Yes Kaiser has a good system and so do its contributing & cooperating partners in Berkeley & Oakland, i.e., the old “Pill Hill” group.
I agree that there is a Rube Goldberg aspect to ObamaCare. Give it a couple more years to see how it works or what parts fail. If the public wakes up enough to find itself really dissatisfied with a public system that incorporates the private insurance companies and HMO’s, it can get smart and turn to SINGLE PAYER health like other successfully civilized countries. Kaiser could serve as model for a national plan whether single- or multi-payer.
You got the message and know I am right.
Yeah, Bobbie, that’s all that’s important. You always have to be “right.” Ever to be wrong about something would unravel you like an old sweater on a barb-wire fence.
ObamaCare wasn’t really even put into place for health care reasons; it is a huge step toward taking control of the country away from We the People, and growing a very scary government. Add to this the crying for gun control (for which THOUSANDS of laws exist already), and once We the People become disarmed, we’re ‘ripe for the pickin’. Before Obamacare was forced upon us, I spoke with Ex-Soviet Russian folks who were terrified by what it meant to them… they could see the future of America and it frightened them. I say Pass the Mandate Amendment and repeal Obamacare! To save our Nation’s future.
You’re wrong, Dionne, possibly about everything but whether it’s raining or not.
Firstly, Dennis, I know you can’t sense the Procrustean nature of classifying health-care services and health insurance as “consumer purchases,” but these “purchases” are different from cars, canned food, party beverages, lumber and bags of cement. Dennis, you are all too human. We humans have a habit of going hyper-abstract in any way that seems useful at the time. It is in the realm of this habit where debate or legal argument can and must occur in ways useful to finding either truth or consensus. We disagree.
Secondly, the really big issue. There’s a difference between individual persons and The People, collectively. Collectively, we are represented (well or poorly) by our government. Your “Mandate Amendment” must be restricted to letting a government not require any INDIVIDUAL to purchase product or service from a private company. For the federal government has no choice but to require itself to buy many things from private companies in the name of The People. I’m sure you don’t want to strip the Pentagon of power to buy war materiel and weapons from monopolistic companies in the Military Industrial Complex. You don’t want cities unable to buy fire engines. IF YOU MANDATE THIS RESTRICTION RELATIVE ONLY TO INDIVIDUALS, YOU ABET CORPORATE SOCIALISM. (Are you really nuts?)
RMS Comments are italicized:
Your “Mandate Amendment” — If that is intended to imply either ownership or origination of this idea, I stake no claim to either. In fact I clearly stated: “One nascent organization is proposing a constitutional amendment…”
must be restricted to letting a government not require any INDIVIDUAL to purchase product or service from a private company. — That is the intention of the amendment.
the federal government has no choice but to require itself to buy many things from private companies…. I am not sure what was said to imply that the “mandate Amendment” would place such restrictions on the government to conduct normal business.
(Are you really nuts?) I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that this question is best directed back at you. You will recall I contacted your son (you copied him in on an e-mail exchange between us), expressing some concerns that would warrant closer attention.
As for your rejection of socialism, that’s fine, but why do you not reject its wealthy relative, Fascism? As for the rhetorical flourish, “Are you nuts?”–you should question yourself on that issue occasionally, like any really sane person. I recognize the demand you place on yourself, like R. Livesay, always to be right and never under any circumstance be, or even appear, wrong about anything. What do your analysts say about that?
Actually Robert, I have never discussed fascism, except in two articles where I paid homage to a German Christian who lost his life to the Nazis for his role in assassination conspiracies against Hitler. So once again you make assumptions based on your ideological bigotry.
Second, I wrote an article (published November of 2010), which specifically addressed this false accusation. It was entitled: “When I am Wrong, I’ll be the First to Admit It”. I then elaborated on numerous areas where I had made serious ‘mistakes or political misjudgments. Perhaps you missed it.
Contact Marc if you would like a copy, or if you wish, I will e-mail it to you, as I still have your e-mail address.
I would add another area where I will admit I was wrong: I thought the general intelligence level of the American electorate was high enough to not reelect Obama. Which is not to say that all those who voted for Obama are stupid, but just enough are to put him over the top.
I apologize for apparent discourtesy. It is usually a mistake on these comment threads as it affords opportunity for another to duck issue or huff away, playing “the insult card” like a nouveau adult.
Thanks, by the way, for responding after all.
As for discussion of fascism, it is every bit as relevant today as ‘dissing’ socialism. You folks on the Right inflate the notion of socialism way too much, letting it float off its definitions and apply too broadly. Fascism, in contrast, gets conflated with The Proper Way of life in America, and hidden out of sight. Unfortunately, outright fascism is at least as bad for the country as pure socialism. We Democrats welcome sensible critique on specific issues and proposals but greatly fear and reject the way Rightist efforts militate (often unconsciously) toward corporate power. Fascism isn’t jackboots and heiling, but the assimilation of public power into big business, especially into self-loyal, international super-corporations, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, etc. Libertarians and other Rightists fuss about loss of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations, but that’s nonsense. The real threat is global fascism: rule over our internal affairs from a financial stratosphere scarcely connected to earthly geography.
RMS Stated: We Democrats welcome sensible critique on specific issues and proposals
Where pray tell does evidence of that fantasy exist? Certainly not here or DC, except perhaps on rare occasions.
Coals to No-castle, Dennis.
Robert, I ran your question past Paul Roy and he has addressed your comment on the website at the FAQ link :
Question: The Mandate Amendment does not specify who is affected by the “no mandate” wording. Does this mean that government cannot purchase goods or services from a private entity?
No. Congress does not mandate expenditures, but rather it appropriates funding for legislation passed. The Mandate Amendment would not encumber federal government spending; it would continue as it has for many decades.
Trying to get through any article or comment by RMS is a joke. He does manage to sneek in nasty and personal comments about others all the time. He thinks it is cute or just whimsical. His article in the paper the other day never made the comment section. So much for suiting up for home games. Once a right fielder always a right fielder.
Once an inept user of crumbly metaphors, always an inept user of crumbly metaphors.
This ain’t gonna happen. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Whats not going to happen?
The Mandate Amendment, Bob.
You may be right that it will not happen. But it sure is getting the attention of the elected officials that are going beyound their duties. They will come around and get things right without the Amendment. Just watch.
Frank,
No bubble was burst.
I think the real question would be: Should it happen? and not could it happen?
The odds are very long against this amendment, that is acknowledged, but if it is the right thing to do, then you have to applaud those who are trying.
How would you be sure it were the right thing to do? All the states require financial responsibility for driving private motor vehicles. This typically involves buying insurance from a private company. Why shouldn’t the federal government require financial responsibility for health service costs? Obamacare allows you to pay an (ambiguous) “tax-or-fine” if you don’t want to buy health coverage. Where’s the beef, other than in ideology?