ELIZABETH B. WYDRA at Politico put a great piece up yesterday entitled, "Constitutional fairy tales and the Affordable Care Act" that really deserves as much of an audience as possible so I'm linking it here. Like they do with The Bible, conservatives yell and foam at the mouth about how they (and ONLY they) know the true meaning of the Constitution. The argument I've heard lately is "because we can read." It's as at this point I find myself waiting for a more in depth answer only to hear the sound of crickets.
Wydra makes her case quite simply.
The current nationwide health care crisis, which involves close to 20 percent of the U.S. economy, is exactly the sort of problem the founders would have wanted the federal government to solve under the powers given to Congress by the Constitution. The Affordable Care Act addresses issues of national concern — involving the states as partners but offering federal mechanisms of reform where necessary.
Yep, pretty much. I've always been struck by how many right wingers, when asked what they would do, say, "Do nothing." And their answer to rising costs is..." And their answer to inelastic demand of many health care markets is....? Crickets.
In 1783, soon after the Revolutionary War was won, Washington wrote to Hamilton, “unless Congress have powers competent to all general purposes, that the distresses we have encountered, the expences we have incurred, and the blood we have spilt in the course of an eight years’ war, will avail us nothing.”
Washington elaborated on this in a 1783 circular to the states. A sufficiently energetic national government was necessary, he wrote “to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the union cannot be of long duration.”
If they wanted a small, limited government with no power, than the Articles of Confederation would have been just fine. Perhaps that's what the Tea Party wants. Why, exactly?
Anyway, what does this all have to do with PPACA?
But while the grants of federal power may be “few and defined,” where such authority is given — it is substantial.
For example, from these few enumerated powers come the ability to regulate interstate commerce and to tax and spend for the general welfare. Add to that the grant of constitutional authority to pass laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out these “few and defined” powers, and the Constitution’s enumerated powers add up to the energetic federal government our founders thought was necessary to govern the United States.
The Affordable Care Act respects this constitutional balance of power by providing federal mechanisms for achieving national health care reform — including the minimum coverage provision and expanded Medicaid coverage. But it also maintains the states’ ability to shape key reform measures that do not need to be uniform, to achieve the act’s legitimate goals.
Exactly. To borrow from Washington, our union cannot be of long duration if we continue to ignore basic truths about health care, particularly the "expences." This is the exact reason why the federal government was created. As Wydra concludes...
The idea that the federal government does not have the power to address a national problem — like the current health care crisis — is a tea party fairy tale with no basis in the Constitution’s text and history.
Fairy tale, indeed. Will there ever be a time when those of us that want to actually solve our nation's problems (using Constitutionally mandated powers) be allowed to do so without interference from people who play dress up and make believe?
The more I think about it, the more I realize that perhaps this election is going to be about fiction versus reality.
2 comments:
The only part of the health care act that's dicey constitutionally is the mandate to buy insurance from a private company. If the law had simply instituted a tax, there would be no question of its constitutionality.
Where did the idea of mandating that consumers buy insurance from private entities come from? Why, from Republicans when they were trying to torpedo Clinton's health care initiative, and Romney's plan in Massachusetts.
The law doesn't really require you to buy health care from a private insurer. If you choose not to buy insurance, you are fined. This is basically an optional tax that is charged to people who aren't carrying their own weight.
It's essentially a voucher program, but instead of sending all our money to the federal government and having them redistribute it, we choose the provider we want without involving the federal government. This falls into line with everything that Republicans have been saying for the last three years, so how can they not like it?
The other objectionable part of the program to Republicans is the exchange, but since these are set up by the states as they see fit there's really nothing to complain about. Without an exchange it's basically impossible to compare insurance plans, which is how insurance companies like it -- without fair comparisons they have every opportunity to mislead you. Basically, Republicans are objecting to the federal government telling states they have to make sure consumers don't get screwed.
This is exactly the kind of health care program the Republicans used to want. Republicans object to it on purely political grounds, and I hope the American people see through the charade.
The current nationwide health care crisis
Crisis? What crisis?
Sorry, but that just begged for a Supertramp reference.
to solve under the powers given to Congress by the Constitution
Yet neither you nor the Administration can make up your mind what power is actually being invoked: the power to lay taxes or to regulate commerce. And no you drooling moron, "both" is not an answer.
And their answer to inelastic demand of many health care markets is....?
[My apologies to the gentler readers of this blog - you may want to skip reading the following.]
Fuck your stupid assertion right in the ass, okay? I am fucking sick and tired of that goddam, lame-ass, trope. Some aspects of health-care may have a somewhat inelastic demand, but that is real fucking FAR from the whole shebang. The fact that you continually mis-characterize (god, am I being generous) this does your argument no credit.
Articles of Confederation would have been just fine
Funny, but you just made the argument of the Anti-Federalists and for exactly the reason they made that argument - too much centralized power. How the fuck did they know? Myself, I think we can get along fine if people would just pay attention to what the Constitution actually says and not do their best to twist into a meaningless pretzel.
Will there ever be a time when those of us that want to actually solve our nation's problems
No, and you should actually welcome that. But you are a fucking neo-fascist bent on using power for the sake of "improving" us demented souls. You are exactly the tyrant that C.S. Lewis describes - one who will impose upon others with the full blessing of his own conscience. I only wish I could enjoy the schadenfreude when the rightwingnuts are in charge of the unbounded power you want for proggie govt and buttfucking you and your children into total submission.
Post a Comment