Wednesday, August 04, 2010

ObamaCare--Missouri ain't buyinng it..

This may be one of the most memorable political quotes from 2010. It came from Princess Nancy Pelosi. She was speaking about ObamaCare, and she said that Democrats were going to have to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy." Well, that worked for Pelosi and Obama. Did it work for you?

Well ... it would seem that the voters of Missouri have now seen what is in the bill ... and they don't like it; not even a little bit. There was a little vote in Missouri yesterday. Well, not quite so little if you're an ObamaZombie. About 70% of the Missouri voters supported a measure on the ballot that would prohibit the government from requiring people to buy health insurance or to penalize them for not buying it.

Obama is also having some problems with the courts on Obamacare. The recent ruling in Virginia on the ObamaCare challenge is a prime example. Judge Hudson believes that "never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far." Are you hearing this? The Obama administration has managed to push our Constitution to its absolute limit to the point where the courts cannot determine whether or not this is even within the bounds of our Constitution. Judge Hudson goes on to say, "While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate-and tax-a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce."

What is the matter with the "decisions have consequences" mantra? OK, fine. So someone makes the choice not to buy health insurance. What does that mean for them? In the past it meant that you head to the emergency room for your ordinary medical care and the insured patients and taxpayers end up paying for your irresponsibility through higher hospital bills and taxes. Now this just isn't a workable model. We need to return to a system where individuals are expected to show at least a modicum of responsibility for their own lives ... and where they will be expected to face certain consequences if they do not. Let's put it bluntly. If someone makes stupid lifestyle and financial choices, and then reaches the point where those stupid choices have created a situation whereby that person is unable to adequately address resulting illnesses ... that situation should not constitute a liability for another American who has paid attention to the details of a responsible and healthy life. When people figure out that the failure to address their own healthcare needs and a healthy lifestyle is going to work out very poorly in the end --- and that includes their not being able to use the government to plunder those who have lived more responsibly --- things will change.

Just remember that to many "rulers" in Washington, the Constitution is an impediment to The Community Organizers' "fundamental transformation" of The United States of America. It would be a nation built on a vaporous definition of "fairness" and redistribution of wealth and resources, rather than a nation built on hard work, individual responsibility and freedom. Slowly but surely, these people in Washington have managed to chip away at our Constitution for years, all in efforts to promise the dumbmasses more and more, for the sole purpose of being re-elected and maintaining power.