It will be interesting to see if the health care reform projects passed by Barack Obama and his colleagues in Congress will now pass the Lemon Test.
Mandatory health insurance is touted a great thing among the more liberally inclined folks dwelling among us. It is especially great since it reaches those unfortunate folks -- 30 million of them -- who do not currently have coverage.
Of course, no one likes to talk about that 30 million, who they are, and what they want. Some of that 30 million includes people who hate medicine, who want nothing to do with doctors; who know that medicine and doctors are not infallible, that doctors often misdiagnose, poison, maim, wound or even kill people. Some people are just plain phobic: sadly, they MUST pay for something they not only don't want, but fear.
Another subset of the American public is that group, like some if not many members of the First Church of Christ, Scientist, who do not want health insurance simply because practitioners of Christian Science seek help in different ways. Is the United States government going to force certain religiously-driven people to comply with something that stands against their religious beliefs? Is the United States government going to subsidize alternative forms of care that are religiously- and not medically-based? Is the United States going to fund care at a Christian Science facility? Is it going to force adult Jehovah's Witnesses to receive blood transfusions if needed, though such transfusions are against the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses' church?
Seriously, the religious and therefore legal implications of the new reforms are dizzying. If certain religious people can be exempted from such insurance, then all religious people can. If the federal government is going to pay for Christian Science-based care (for example), such will be denounced as excessive entanglement in religion (which means, it fails the Lemon Test). And if religious people who DO NOT WANT HEALTH INSURANCE are FORCED to do so, the state, then, will be acting as "Theologian-in-chief," telling its citizens that the cult of the state trumps the cult of any particular church, synagogue or mosque.
These issues are an obvious result of poorly formed, poorly planned legislation that was passed with nary a debate. This is the result of taking advantage of a manufactured crisis and its resultant fears, of ramming through something not because it was good for the country, but because it was good for a man and his party. And it is just further evidence of the Democrats' "Legislate now, think later" behavior. It is, sadly, a behavior that looks more like addiction than anything else.
©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
12 comments:
It really does kill me that the chickens are coming home to roost. First, SEC rules require companies to immediately right down costs and disclose same publicly. Yet, when they follow the law, they're summoned before congress to answer questions.
I think there's going to be more squirming going on as the true nature of this mess becomes known.
Cheers.
Yes, R., you're right. The whole Waxman thing should be an EMBARRASSMENT not only to all Democrats but all Americans as well.
Waxman and Company don't want the truth to be told, even when telling that truth is mandated by law.
Amazing.
*sigh* You have a fundamental misunderstanding of liberals. The "more liberally inclined folks dwelling among us" wanted universal coverage, not mandatory private insurance. You have no clue, do you?
Also, if you wanted a debate, you should have debated, not sat around with your fingers in your ears shouting "No!" The Democrats were more than willing to come to the table, but you elected stubborn fools who forced the Dems to go it alone.
Not that any elected Republican could have helped in any way, it would have been nice if someone had truly scrutinized the bill. It's undoubtedly flawed, and it's pathetic that this country can't do better.
Ginx,
How absurd, my friend. What you're saying is that I should have written this:
"Mandatory health insurance is touted a great thing among the more conservatively inclined folks dwelling among us."
Yeah, that would be accurate in Ginx-land, I guess.
Notice what I DID write, Ginx: "...the more liberally inclined among us." I did not write "the MOST liberally inclined among us" for a reason.
As for shouting "No!", well, that was hardly heard in the halls of Congress, at least shouted by Republicans, and this for two reasons: One, it was the Democrats who stood in the way of ObamaCare, not Republicans, who were stuck in a feckless minority. Two, the Republicans were BLOCKED OUT OF THE DEBATE by the Democrats in Congress.
But, seriously, I would rather associate myself with the Republicans as the Party of No than with the Democrats, the Party of Woe.
Peace.
Republicans as the Party of No
When they are the "Party of No", yes. When they're the Party of Big Government as they were under Bush II (remember the Medicare prescription drug expansion?) then no.
SE: Isn't it funny when people believe Republican rhetoric? I think people who vote Republican really believe the bullshit. It makes it hard to take them seriously, no?
I have to disagree with you, Bill-at least for the nounce. We have too many clients at my Clinic who have lost insurance,or cannot afford insurance (including me)-patients either gets some subsidized care at CMC or Elliot, or the patient simply does not pay, or does not go. The Healthsystem before Obama was a big, sloppy mess with more cracks then the Titanic and leaked money everywhere.
Of course, the health care delivery system is a hash. No one claims that it's not. Nor does anyone commenting on these pages believe that poor should not be helped. The ad hominem pontificating does nothing to advance the debate.
Single payer v. private third party? The problem's the same: people want a cheap, state of the art, and unrationed, i.e unlimited man-made commodity.
Such a thing does not and will never exist.
The system we have is complex. Indeed the smartest words ever uttered by Hillary Clinton were that it's like a balloon. You poke it one place and another place expands.
That's what we're seeing now and this thing is not yet a week old.
It's not about motives; it's not about ends, if you mean improving the delivery system and bringing more people in. The debate is about the means.
You want ideas: There are plenty. Start with saying everyone needs to pay up to 7.5 percent of their gross income for medical care. Allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines. Give every taxpayer a 50% tax credit (not a deduction, a credit) on medical expenses, including premiums.
All of those would lower the cost and make it more affordable.
But the pols don't want that. They want the money and power.
That's where the argument is.
DL,
The health care reform package that just passed is a "big Titanic mess" that will leak money everywhere. But that is not my point in this essay.
I am interested in whether the law as it currently stands is unconstitutional by failing to meet the supreme court's Lemon Test. I think a good case, at least in theory (at the moment), can be made that it is does fail that test and is thus legally doomed.
Peace.
I dunno,Bill-all of the talking head "experts" I've seen on the various news channels, even Fox, agree that any idea of outright killing the Healthcare reform act is unlikely to fly on any legal grounds. If this is the Titanic, I guess theres no other recourse but women and children to the lifeboats first.
am interested in whether the law as it currently stands is unconstitutional by failing to meet the supreme court's Lemon Test.
Just about everything the Federal government now does is unconstitutional. If the courts actually enforced the Constitution, how much of Federal tyranny would survive?
Post a Comment